







t 


><=* 
















, 










<?' 






















'<* 










J> 


<v 












•y , 












<*V 









u 






O 



£ ^ 






^ * M 












%. v^ 



V **> 



^> 












9 



»\ 



> W vi i 







XT 



NEW AND COMPLETE SYSTEM 



CHRISTIAN BAPTISM; 

FORMER ESTABLISHED 

UPON THE 

IMMUTABILITY OF SCRIPTURE FACTS AND EVI- 
DENCES, COMMON SENSE AND THE 
NATURE OF THINGS; 

TOGETHER WITH ESSAYS 

ON THE SUBJECTS OP 

FEET WASHING AND THE HOLY KISS, 



BY C. C. GUENTHER, 

Minister of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. 



ASHLAND, OHIO: 

STANDARD BOOK AND JOB OFFICE, 

R. V. KENNEDY, Printer, 



1848. iW 



Cv 



o/WASr^ 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year IS48, 

BY CHARLES C. GUENTHER, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Conrt of the United 

States in and for the District of Ohio. 



PREFACE. 



We have written on the subject of Christian Baptism 
•with no other view than to direct those in their duty to 
God, themselves, and their children, who reject all human 
tradition, and take the word of God as the only sufficient 
and unexceptionable rule of faith and practice. We have 
attempted to answer every question, and to meet every ob- 
jection; and therefore, have preferred to present our labors 
in questions and answers. 

That God sbould have left a subject of such importance 
as that of Christian Baptism, even a gospel ordinance, op- 
tional with us, whether our children shall or shall not be 
baptized, and whether we shall have the water applied, or 
be all over dipped into it, or that the Holy Scriptures, them- 
selves, do not decide these points, would argue an imperfec- 
tion in Deity. If one thing is optional all is; consequently, 
upon these principles, although we have a revelation, we, 
notwithstanding, can do as we please, and yet be religious 
and go to heaven. 

That Christian Baptism is a subject of importance, cannot 
be denied. Bring once to your recollection the divisions, 
broils and contentions, originating out of this subject.— 
Moreover, we can never expect to enlighten the world, and 
bring mankind to agree on this subject, unless we refer 
alone to the Holy Scriptures for testimony. 

We have also attempted to discuss the subjects of Feet- 
Washing and the Holy Kiss: —subjects of continued dispute 
in some parts of our country. How far we may succeed in 
doing good, time only will show, and eternity develope. — 
May the Great Head of the Church bless our efforts, and 
make them instrumental in enlightening the ignorant, and 
establishing the wavering, that they may partake of the sal- 
vation of God and be saved. 

THE AUTHOR, 

Hayesville, Ashlayid Comity, Ohio, May, 1818. 



CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 



PART I. — PREPARATORY MATTER. 



VARIOUS SUBJECTS. 



CHAPTER I. SECTION I. 



INTRODUCTORY. 



Q. 1. If we are only honest and sincere on reli- 
gious subjects, will not that make us right? 

A. To test this question, let us suppose a case: 
Should a man, under all the honesty and sincerity 
imaginable, purchase a farm for a certain sum ; then 
were he to manage, with the strictest economy and 
best motives, to pay the remainder of the dues against 
it, and fail, [as has often been the case,] and so in a 
few years lose all, would that make him right? — 
would that be no disappointment, grief or "vexation 
of spirit?" Again, might we not have been honest 
and sincere in our religious views and practice, with- 
out the Holy Scriptures: had that made us right? 
What, then, their use ? Has God erred, or is man 
sometimes wrong, when he thinks candor and hon- 
esty will make him right ? Was not Eve upright and 
candid, in her own estimation, (Gen. iii: 6,) when 
she ate of the forbidden fruit ? Yet, what the con- 
sequences ! — the misery entailed! St. Paul, too, 
was honest and conscientious (Acts xxvi: 9; 1 Tim. i: 
13,) when he persecuted the Church. (Actsix: 1 — 20.) 
Did that make him right? If so, why did he not 

[A] 



6 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part\. 

-continue a Pharisee and a persecutor of the Church ? 

Q. 2. But are we not (1 Thes. v: 21) to "prove 
all things?" 

A. We are not, however, to prove or test sin by 
experience — this or that subject by our prejudices, 
erroneous views or opinions — neither by passages 
of Scripture that are foreign to the subject. 

Q. 3. Yet is it not said, (Rom. xiv: 5,) "Let 
«very man be fully persuaded in his own mind ? " 

A. Yes — but only by testimony and scripture 
adapted to that subject. 

Q. 4. May we not, however, glean something 
good from the discussions and writings of men who 
even mingle error and truth together? 

A. Not unless we are wiser and better qualified 
than was Eve; for thus Satan was enabled to admin- 
ister to her the cup of poison that has rendered her 
entire progeny miserable. 

Q. 5. Are not some of every denomination saved ? 

A. With some few exceptions. 

Q. 6. This, then, admitted, [for that is enough 
if only saved,] may not each denomination safely ad- 
here to their own views., and continue in their own 
practice? 

A. Nay; for if saved (1 Cor. in: 11 — 16,) it is "so 
as by fire," (v. 15,) i.e. under alarming circumstances; 
(Ps. lxvi: 11 — 13; Amos iv: 11; Zech. iii: 2; Jude 
23; Heb. xii: 29;) with great difficulty, merely; 
or "as one is saved who runs through afire;" his 
works (v. 12, " wood, hay stubble,") all burnt. Is 
it not, then, still not only irrational, dishonest and 
iinful, but even condemning, to adhere to views, 
and to cleave to practice, that differ from the Holy 
Scriptures? 



Chap. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 7 

Q. 7. But, are not the opinions so various, and 
the modes of practice so contradictory , that it is dif- 
ficult to know who are right ? 

A. This is only the case with such as are more 
inclined to listen to the sophistry of men, (Mai. ii: 
8 ; 1. John iv; 1,) than rationally and scripturally to 
test the doctrine or fact under consideration. The 
Bible tells us but of "one Lord, one Faith, one 
Baptism." (Eph. iv: 5.) 

Q. 8. But has not more been said and written on 
these subjects — particularly on that of Baptism — 
than has really been a benefit ? 

A. This is freely admitted. So much quackery 
has been practised on these and other subjects, but 
particularly on the subject of Christian Baptism, that 
it will take an age to repair the injury. 

Q. 9. Is it not, then, sinful to have so much con- 
tention on religious subjects ? 

A. This depends entirely upon ability and motive. 
We ought never to undertake a thing unless quali- 
fied. This is dishonest in all things, and in spiritual 
matters, cannot fail of being heinous in the sight of 
our Heavenly Father. When the motives are vic- 
tory and applause, we may rest assured the devil 
realizes a gratification. But as Christians, [such are 
none,] we are bound, to the best of our ability, upon 
the principles of love and mercy, to rectify the erro- 
neous sentiments of our neighbors. It is for their 
and our good. Hence, St. James (v. 3,) "exhorts " 
us, "that" we "should earnestly contend for the 
faith which was once delivered unto the saints;" 
and St. Peter (1 Pet. iii: 15,) would have us to "be 
ready always to give an answer to every man that 
asketh" us "a reason of the hope that is in" us, 



8 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Parti. 

"with meekness and fear," or reverence ; (Tit. i: 
7—15; 2 John 7—12; PhiL h 17; Col. iv: 6.) 

Q. 10. What do wc learn from a view of the 
above ? 

A. That we must have correct views of the entire 
plan of salvation, in order to be intelligent, acticc, 
firm and practical christians. 



SECTION II. 



IHE HOLY SCRIPTURES THE RATIONAL AND ONLY CON- 
CLUSIVE SOURCE OF REFERENCE. 



Q. 1. How may we get at the proper mode of 
Christian Baptism, and the subjects which that sacred 
ordinance embraces ? 

A. Only by adhering to the Word of God. Let 
it interpret itself, by deciding the points of difference 
on the subject, and we at once have a scriptural in- 
terpretation — a Divine decision. If it can be thus 
made appear that the only proper means of adminis- 
tration is the application of the thing to the subject, 
and not the subject to the thing, and that it requires 
moral fitness in every subject to whom it is adminis- 
tered, then the thing is at once and forever set at 
rest. 

Q. 2. Would it not, however, be well to consult 
the practice of this rite in churches of long standing? 

A. Not at all. The Greek and Roman Catholic 
claim priority; yet, all well know, are filled with 
superstition and error. 

Q. 3. Cannot we, then, rely upon the early fath- 
ers of the first christian centuries ? 



Chap. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 9 

A. We cannot. They, too, have had their weak- 
ness, prejudices and sinister motives. Consequently, 
as we cannot, at this distant period, discriminate be 
tween the truths and errors they were led to record, 
we can place no confidence in their assertions. — ■ 
Morover, some, at this present time, as teachers and 
authors, have zeal without knowledge ; (Rom. x: 2,) 
who quote them without judgment, thought or can- 
dor ; so that their sentiments and remarks are often 
applied without the least shadow of the original truth 
they intended to convey. 

Q. 4. Do you not, then, on the subject of Bap- 
tism, thus reject all Church History ? 

A. Certainly. God has not given us that as a re- 
velation of his will — neither have all access to those 
or other foreign records. So the confidence of the 
people, when reference is had to such productions, 
must be entirely placed in those who assume the au- 
thority to preach — 'whether called to that office or 
not — converted or unconverted — qualified or dis- 
qualified—honest or dishonest. 

Q. 5. Might we not, then, safely consult the sen- 
timents of the learned? 

A. By no means. Many of the learned were un- 
converted, and thus scripturally disqualified, (1 Cor. 
ii: 14.) " The natural man receiveth not the things 
of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto 
him : neither can he know them, because they are 
spiritually discerned." Their learned criticisms 
nnd discussions on scripture, then, are too uncer- 
tain to elicit our confidence. (1 Pet. iv: 11.) 

Q. 6. Can we not, then, confide in the sentiments 
of the pious? 

A. We regret to say that even many of them, with 

M 



SO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Parti. 

all their candor, talents and learned attainments, 
have, on the subject of Baptism, greatly erred. 

Q. 7. What has been the origin of this error? 

A. Some of the most unfounded principles that 
ever occupied the intellect of man. The significa- 
tion of "Baptize," as used in the ordinance of Chris- 
tian Baptism, has been sought by reference to Greek 
writers, who were heathens, and destitute of any 
religious ceremonies of the kind. Reference also 
has been had to the traditionary use of the word, as 
applied by the Pharisees, to the practice of proselyte 
baptisms, yet all of as little value as the tradition of the 
Elders; (Mark vii: 2 — 10;) and, if we may be allow- 
ed the expression, to a thousand other absurdities. 
Again, some being satisfied with any mode, wrote on 
one or the other side of this question, as fancy taught; 
whilst others took for granted, without examination, 
what they found written on the subject; and thus 
some either remained steadfast for an application in 
the administration of Baptism, or became gradually 
prejudiced in favor of Immersion; and consequently 
little children, as subjects for Christian Baptism, had 
then to be rejected. 

Q. 8. Does not this, then, deprive us of arriving 
at the significationo? the word Baptize, by means of 
a dictionary ? 

A. Certainly. However well dictionaries may 
answer for other words, they will not for the defini- 
tion of this, as used in the ordinance of Christian 
Baptism. It has been so frequently dissected, and so 
shamefully mangled, that the only certain lexicon is 
The Bible. 

Q. 9. But what do you mean by the expression, 
"The Bible?" 



Chap. I. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 11 

A. The Book of B6oks, or The Holy Scriptures. 

Q. 10. But why so tenacious of "The Holy Scrip- 
tures ? " 

A. Because they are the only infallible and conclu- 
sive source of reference relative to the religious opin- 
ions, rites and practices of any people. (Isa. viii: 
20; Mai. ii: 7; John v: 39.) 

Q. 11. But what do you understand by the ex- 
pression, "The Holy Scriptures ? " 

A. The whole revealed will of God, as contain- 
ed in the Old and New Testaments. St. Paul tells 
us, 2 Tim. iii: 16, 17, "All scripture is given by 
inspiration of God," and then gives us the use and 
design, by informing us that it "is profitable for 
doctrine, for reproof , for correction, for instruction 
in righteousness; that the man of God may be per- 
fect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works ;" 
that the Old was given by inspiration, (2 Pet. i: 
21,) is scripture, and designed still for use, (Acts 
vii: 38,) is then asserted by the New. So if we re- 
ject the one, we necessarily must, ami in fact do, re- 
ject both. Again, this same Apostle positively states 

— Rom. xv: 4, — that "Whatsoever things were 
written aforetime, were written for our learning, 
that we, through patience and comfort of the scrip- 
tures, might have hope." (Luke xvi: 29, 31 ; Acts 
xxiv: 14 j 1 Cor. x: 11 ; 1 Tim. i: 8, 18.) We are 
also told Eph. ii: 19 — 21 that the Ephesians were 
"no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citi- 
zens with the saints," and "built upon the founda- 
tion of the Apostles and Prophets — Jesus Christ 
being the chief corner stone." Take away, however, 
the prophets, and the building leans — cannot stand 

— must fall —and if it fall nowhere else, it will fall 



12 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Parti, 

into the water, — u and great V will be "the fall of 
it ! " Math, vii: 27. 

Q. 12. Should we, however, refer to the Old 
Testament, to establish, more fully, a gospel ordi- 
nance, than might otherwise be done in the New ? 

A. Certainly. If the whole volume of Divine 
Truth must be taken, in order to become qualified, 
through faith in Christ Jesus, for Heaven, it of 
course follows, that not only light may be thrown 
on this, or that particular subject found in the New, 
by a passage, serving as a proof, recorded in the 
Old, but that the thing, fact, or even the doctrine, 
or mode of administering an ordinance, taught in the 
New, can also be confirmed and established by the 
Old. If, too, what was written aforetime — »viz: in 
the Old Testament — was ( written for our learning,* 
something from that source, on the subject of a gospel 
ordinance, may be learned, as well as on any other. 

Q. 13. What method did the Apostles, &c, take 
in establishing many of the facts they taught? 

A. It is expressly said that St. Paul, Acts xvii: 
2 — 4, "reasoned with # the Jews out of the Scrip- 
tures. " Thus St. Peter reasoned on the day of Pen- 
tecost. (Acts ii: 14 — 37.) This was also one means 
by which the Saviour, himself, taught and estab- 
lished many facts. (Math, xii: 1 — 9; xix: 3 — 10.) 
Christ thus met Satan. (Math, iv: 1 — 12.) So we, 
then, by their example, are also taught to wield the 
weapons of Divine Truth, both of the Old and New 
Testaments, with a design to convict and convert 
the sinner, and to drive, if possible, the Old Dragon, 
with all his apostate crew of opposition, from all 
their lurkiugs, and thus develope the deception they 
design to impose. 



Chap. I. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 13 

Q. 14. But upon what principle of the Scriptures 
do you intend to point out the subjects of Baptism, 
and present the signification of the word Baptize ? 

A. Upon no other than the unity of the Church, 
the nature of the Gospel Covenant^— that which has 
bearing upon the nature of the ordinance itself — > 
and such facts and circumstances as are connected 
with the administration of the Baptisms recorded iia.- 
Scripture. 



SECTION III. 



THE PEOPLE OF GOD I THEIR VISIBILITY, ECCLESSI- 

ASTICAL ECONOMY, AND THE SCRIPTURAL APPELLA- 
TIONS GIVEN THEM. 



i^. 1. Who among mankind constitute the "Peo- 
ple of God?" 

A. All that collective body who have been found 
in a state of grace. 

Q. 2. Was there ever an era of the world, when 
there were no unworthy characters among them? 

A. Never. As far as we can trace, through eve- 
ry age and section of the world, from the present 
time, down to Cain and Abel, unworthy members 
have been found among them, 

Q. 3. Is it a token of good sense and an upright 
heart, to reject a doctrine or practice of the People 
of God, on account of such persons? 

A. It is not half so absurd and unjust to reject 
husbandry, mechanism, and other pursuits, because 
there are worthless persons among our honest yeo- 
manry, artists, and others, who are engaged with 



14 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Parti. 

them in the same occupations of life, as to reject a 
truth, fact or practice, revealed in Scripture, because 
there have always been worthless persons found 
among the People of God. 

Q. 4. When had this People, as a body, visi- 
bility ? 

A. From the time that there were externals 
connected with their worship. Sacrifices constitu- 
ted a part. These appear to have been instituted 
immediately after the fall. (Gen. iii: 21.) The 
same was observed as an external by Cain and Abel, 
(Gen. iv: 3, 5,) and by Noah. (Gen. viii: 20.) — 
Then another, Circumcision, was added; (Gen. 
xvii:,) and thus we might continue, through the 
Scriptures, until it arrived unto its perfection, under 
the glorious light of the gospel. (Math, xxvi: 26; 
xvm: 19.) 

Q. 5. Upon what has the ecclesiastical economy 
of this People, during the various changes of society, 
been founded ? 

A. Upon the Patriarchal, National and Chris- 
tian. 

Q. 6. Of whom was each of these composed ? 

A. Firstly—* the Patriarchal, of the Patriarch's 
family .family descendants and domestics, over whom 
he presided as officiating priest. (Gen. xii: 7 — 9; 
xxii: 1—20; xxxv: 1—4 ; 6— S.) 

Secondly — the National, of the descendants of a 
Patriarch, (Gen. xv: 13 — 15; Ex. iii: 6—9; xix. 6,) 
and their domestics, (Ex. xii: 44,) constituting a na- 
tion, for whom God called, set apart and appointed 
certain persons to officiate for them in religious mat- 
ters. (Ex. iii: 10; iv: 14—17; xxix: 1, &c.; Heb. v. 4.) 

Thirdly-- the Christian, of familits (Acts xvi: 14 



Chap. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 15 

— 16) and individuals (Acts viii: 12) of any descent, 
(Gal. iii: 28,) consisting of societies, (Rom. xvi: 4 — 6; 
I Cor. vii: 17; xvi: 19,) constituting a nation, (1 Pet. 
ii. 9 — 11,) for whom God called, set apart and ap- 
pointed certain persons to officiate for them in re- 
ligious matters. (Math, iv: 18 — 20, Acts ix: 1 — 21; 
Math, xxviii: 16, &c; Acts xiv; 23^ ii: 46; xx: 7 — 12.) 

Q. 7. Can you give some of the scriptural appel- 
lations given to this people ? 

A. First — they, under the old dispensation, were 
termed " A Family," (Amos iii: 1,) "A People," 
(Ex. iii: 10; vi:7,) "A Congregation," (Num. xxvii: 
15, &c.) and "A Nation." (Ps. xxxiii: 12.) 

Second — under the New, "A Kingdom," (Math, 
viii; 12,) "The Kingdom of God," (Math, xxi: 43,) 
"The Church," (ekklesia, Acts vii: 34—39: derived 
from 'ekkalio,' to call out or from. Thus Abraham, 
then, as the father of the Church, Rom, iv: 11 — 14, 
was called out. (Gen, xii; 1, &c.) 

Third^the predictions under the Old, referring to 
them under the New, term them "A Nation," (Isa. 
Iv: 5,) "A Kingdom," (Dan. ii: 44; vii: 27.) 

Fourth— under the New, "A House," (oiko, 1 
Tim. iii: 15; oikos, Heb. iii: 6;) "The People of 
God," (1 Pet. ii: 10,) "A Nation," (1 Pet. ii; 9,) 
"The Kingdom of Heaven," (Math, iii: 2,) and 
"The Church." (Ekklesia, 1 Tim. iii: 15.) 

Fifth — conjointly living under the Old and New, 
they are called "The Church." (Ekklesia, Col.i: 18.) 

Q. 8. What important facts do the Ecclessiastical 
Economy and these Appellations present ? 

A. First — under each Ecclessiastical economy a 
manifold identity of God's People. 



16 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Fart h 

Second — that Children of every age and era of the 
world constituted a large portion of the Church. 

Third— that "Family," "House," (oikos, family,) 
"People," "People of God," "Congregation," "Na- 
tion," "Kingdom," "Kingdom of God," "Kingdom 
of Heaven" and "Church," (ekklesia,) are frequently 
used as synonymous terms and titles, by which God 
himself has always been pleased to distinguish his 
People from the world that lieth in wickedness. 

Q. 9. What is the general practical import of 
this section ? 

A. That we should always be ready to comply 
with the directions of the Sacred Scriptures; and 
that, instead of rejecting the doctrines and the apos- 
tolic use of the means of Grace, there recorded — » 
[should we, we cannot have scriptural visibility, and 
must be irreligious] — because some have abused 
their proper use, and lived unworthy of their profes- 
sion ; we, therefore., should be the more inclined to 
belong to that people, that we might have the oppor- 
tunity to employ all our ability in their reformation, 
so that their souls might be saved from the awful 
consequences of sin. It is a mark of folly to live in 
sin because others do. Our excuse, that we [how- 
ever true] are better than many professors, will not 
make us pious ; nor will this, at death, throw open 
the gates of Paradise, for us to enter the New Jeru- 
salem. 

Q. 10. Do you, then, make it impossible to be 
pious without visibility, or the use of externals ? 

A. We do; but we would more particularly an- 
swer this question by proposing a few others. Why, 
then, were Baptism and the Lord's Supper, as exter- 



€hapA. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 11 

nals, instituted, if we can be pious without their use ! 
By their rejection, do we not make the blessed Savior 
to have erred, and to have instituted them in vain I 
How can we reconcile all this with our conscience ? 
less with the Holy Scriptures. (Rom. ixi 5 ; Col. ii: 
3.) Again, why will the Redeemer have us to be 
"born of water," as well as "of the Spirit ? " Why 
does he positively declare, unless this take place, 
we (i cannot enter into the kingdom of God?" — 
(John iii: 5.) Has he not also said, "Take, eat ; this 
is my body; — Drink ye all of it ? " (i. e. of the cup ; 
Math, xxvi: 26 — 29.) "This do ye — in remembrance 
of me." Are we not, then, thus required to "show 
the Lord^s death till he come ? " (1 Cor. xi: 23— 
27; John xiv: 15; xv: 14.) 

Q. 11. But what do you understand by the 
means of grace? 

A. All that God has devised as means, and made 
a. religious duty. These he never fails to accompany 
by the Holy Spirit. The design is, to solemnize and 
effect the heart; and thus bring about conviction, &c. ? 
-and the salvation of the soul. Error and lies he 
never does, 'nor can accompany by the energy of the 
Holy Spirit, or that which varies from the plan of 
salvation- 

Q. 12. Have you not, however, thus made the 
means of grace meritorious, and essential to salva- 
tion? 

A. By no means. Neglect, however, their use, 
and you place yourself in a situation similar to per- 
sons with healthy stomachs and good appetites, seat- 
ed at a table filled with all the delicacies and dainties; 
of this life: should they not eat, they would certainly 



18 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 1 

starve ; — should they, however, it would not be 
chewing or masticating and swallowing the food, and 
receiving the drink, that would satiate the appetite 
and give pleasure and delightful sensations, and 
which would nourish the system, but the food and 
drink received or taken. This is precisely the state 
of the professor. Without the use of the means of 
grace, he cannot obtain and realize the meritorious 
effects of the atonement. Should, however, the 
stomach have lost its functions, or be diseased, the 
reception of the necessaries of life is all in vain ; it 
cannot digest ; consequently, the nourishing princi- 
ples are all lost. Hence, a cure, or the patient dies. 
So, also, the sinner. Should his heart be and con- 
tinue diseased, by the prevailing power of sin, the 
use of the means of grace is all to no purpose; he 
cannot lay hold of the merits of the atonement. He 
must first be cured by conversion, or else under even 
the continued use of them, he will die and go to hell. 

Q. 13. But is it possible that we are irreligious, 
without attaching ourselves to this People, and thus 
rendered unable to obtain salvation ? 

A. We cannot conceive how there can be faithful 
subjects of a Kingdom without having come under its 
laws, and being made subject to the King. All 
know, a willful violation and a known neglect of the 
law of a sovereign, is transgression and contempt ex- 
ercised towards his sacred majesty. Much more, 
however, the enormity of such criminality perpetra- 
ted against the great Sovereign and King of Heaven. 
Can the like be any thing more or less than irreligion? 
What, then, the hope of salvation? Again, the 
Church God has called out, (Acts ii: 39,) must be 



Chap. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 19 

separated (2 Cor. vi: 14 &c.) "perfectly joined together 
in the same mind" — (1 Cor. i: 10) — the mind of Christ 
-—(Phil, ii: 5) — having his spirit, (1 Cor. vi: 17,) and 
is not to look like the world. (Rom. xii: 2.) The 
World is darkness, (John i: 5,) and the Church is 
light; (Eph. v: 8;) and therefore her members are to 
use and walk in the light, or to practise the doctrines 
and use the -ordinances of the gospel. This, and 
nothing short of this, is Christianity. 



SECTION IV. 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 



Q. 1. Is the Church, under the New dispensation, 
the continuation, as found under the Old ? 

A. Nothing more certain. This has already been 
seen ; First — by her identified ecclessiastical econ- 
omy and scriptural appellations ; Second, the Savior 
on this subject is decided. He says, John x: 15 — 17, 
"I lay down my life for the the sheep: — other sheep 
[the Gentiles] I have, which are not of this [Jewish] 
fold: them also must I bring, — and there shall be 
onefold and one shepherd." One of these [Jewish] 
sheep has, under the former [or Old] dispensa- 
tion, said, (Ps. xxiii: 1 — 4,) "The Lord is my shep- 
herd, I shall not want." David's Lord, then, was 
Christ, (Ps. xc: 1 , Math, xxii: 44;) the Church, then, as 
onefold, embracing Jew and Gentile, having one shep- 
herd, cannot possibly be two ; but one People, hav- 
ing one Lord. Christ, then, and no other, has re- 
deemed, fed and nourished this fold. So it is unde- 



20 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part L 

niable ; the Christian Church is the continuation of 
the Jewish; Third, it is said, Eph. v: 23, "Christ 
is the Head of the Church: the Savior of the body." 
Eph. i: 22,23, He is "the Head over all things, to 
the Church, which is his body." (Col. i: IS.) It is 
then clear, the Body is the Church, and Christ the 
Head and Savior of the Body or Church. The 
Church, then, under the New dispensation, can be 
nothing else than a continuation of the same Church 
under the Old. A denial of this, [which is so often 
the case,] is asserting that the People of God, under 
the Old, had neither a Head nor Savior ; or that 
that body had an entirely different Head and Savior 
from that under the New. (1 Tim. iv: 10; 2 Cor. 
v: 19.) 

Q. 2. What light does the passage in Rom. xi: 
23 — 25 throw on this subject? 

A. The Apostle Paul, in "speaking of the future 
restoration of the Jews, says: "They, also, if they 
abide not in unbelief, shall be grafted in : for God is 
able to graff them in again, — for if thou [Gentile] 
wert cut out of the olive tree, that is wild by nature, 
[Heathenism,] and were gratfed contrary to nature, 
into a good olive tree, [the Jewish Church,] how 
much more shall these, [Jews,] who are the natural 
branches, be graffed into their own olive tree ? 
[Church.] " The olive tree, hence, must signify the 
Jews, either as a nation or as a religious community 
— a Church of God. It cannot mean the former, for 
the Gentiles never were graffed on the Jewish nation. 
It must, then, mean the Church. Now, the Apos- 
tle teaches that the Jews were cut off from this 
Church by unbelief, and the Gentiles received or 



Chap. I. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 21 

grafted into it; and in the fullness of time the Jews 
shall again be received into their own church or 
olive tree ; which must therefore be still standing ; 
that is, the Christian and Jewish Churches" [as they 
are termed] "are still one and the same Church." 

Q. 3. What additional evidence does the passage 
in Math, xxi: 43, give on this subject ? 

A. In this passage, as in many others, " King- 
dom of God" is synonymous with "Kingdom oi* 
Heaven" and "Church." Hence Christ informs the 
Jews, by this expression, in view of their rejecting 
him as their Savior, that "Therefore, say I unto 
you, the kingdom of God [or Church] shall be taken 
from you [Jews] and given to a nation [the Gentiles] 
bringing forth the fruit thereof." It is then certain 
they [the Jews] had the Kingdom of God, [or 
Church,] or it could never have been taken from 
them.. It is as certain, also, that the Gentiles were 
not in possession of it, or it could not have been giv- 
en to them ; nor could they have received it. That 
the thing has taken place, and the prediction been 
fulfilled, none can deny. Thus, then, the Gentiles 
are in possession of the Kingdom of God, the Church, 
which once belonged to, and was in possession of 
the Jews. (See Math, xxi: 33 — 44, and particularly 
v. 41; also, iii: 11 — 13, "his floor " the Jewish 
Church.) 

Q. 4. But did not John and Christ preach, (Math, 
iii: 2; iv: 17,) and were not the Disciples (Math. 
x: 7, 19) required to inform the People that they 
should "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at 
hand;" i. e. is come nigh unto you. How, then, in 
possession of the Jews? 



22 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Partt. 

A. The expression, " 'the Kingdom of Heaven is 
at hand* — is come nigh unto you," [Jews,] means 
not that the Jews were never in possession of the 
Kingdom, but that the time was c at hand* when its 
externals, such as the Priesthood, Ceremonies, 
Festivals, &c., were all to be changed, its borders 
enlarged, and another order of men appointed to 
officiate in sacred things. This accounts for Dan- 
iel's language, (ii:- 44,) that God would "set up a 
Kingdom;" L e. under a new formation, (vii: 27,) 
which would continue to the end of time, without 
any change again to take place in externals. (Ps. 
cxxxii: 11; Isaiah ix: 6 — 8; Luke i: 31 — 34. 

Q. 5. What do you, however, make of the pas- 
sage in Eph. ii: 15, where it is said Christ "made of 
twain [Jews and Gentiles] one new man ? " 

4. This: Christ (v. 14— 21) "made both [Jews 
and Gentiles] one" [body, Eph. iii: 6, or church,] 
by having "broken down the middle wall [that which 
kept them apart] of partition between" them; and 
thus "having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even 
the law of commandments," [or externals,] in order 
"to make in himself of twain [Jew and Gentile] 
one new man ; [the Jews, new in externals, and the 
Gentiles new in morals, &c.,] so making peace, 
that he might reconcile both [Jew and Gentile] unto 
God in one body [the Church] by the cross ; that 
they [the Gentiles] might be no longer strangers 
and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, 
[the pious Jews,] and of the household of God ; — 
built upon the foundation [the moral precepts] of 
the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ him- 
self being the chief [bottom'] corner stone," "by 



Chap. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 23 

which the two sides [the Jews and Gentiles] of the 
building are united; and on which the whole corner 
rests." This "one new man," then, is nothing less 
than the Jewish Church remodelled, or any thing 
short of her continuation under the New dispensa- 
tion. Moreover, this argument may be further 
strengthened when we remember that the Church ie 
represented by the title of the "temple of the Lord," 
and "habitation of God, (Eph. ii: 21, 22,) in allusion 
to the temple at Jerusalem, which was a type of the 
Church; (1 Cor. iii: 16; Heb. iii: 6; 1 Pet. ii: 5;) 
and as Jesus Christ is represented as the foundation 
on which this edifice is built, (1 Cor. iii: 11 ; Eph. ii: 
20, 21, 22,) so both the Jewish and Christian church- 
es must be one and the same. The thing cannot be 
otherwise ; and consequently the latter the continua- 
tion of the former. (See Acts xv: 14 — 18 ; Amos ix: 
9—13.) 



SECTION V. 



THE OLD AND NEW DISPENSATIONS. 



Q. 1. What the difference between these two 
dispensations ? 

A. None, morally. Math, v: 17, "Think not," 
says Christ, "that I am come to destroy the law and 
the prophets ; I am not come to destroy, but to ful- 
fill." Fulfill, in Greek plerosai, means also toper- 
feet, to complete. Then the passage can justly be 
read thus: "Think not that I am come to destroy 
the law and the prophets; I am not come to destroy, 



24 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Pari t. 

but to perfect, to complete the law, (See Math, v: 38, 
&c; Mark xii: 30 — 32,) and to fulfill the prophets," 
or predictions. Of the latter the New Testament is 
replete. (See also Math, xxii: 37 — 41.) Then the 
moral code is still in full force and virtue; — cere- 
monially, however, there is- a difference. Types 
and shadows of the former have pa&sed away, be- 
cause of the symbolic use of others r under the latter, 
instituted in their stead, as more substantial of the 
substance of religious information. (Eph. ii: 13 — 18; 
Heb. vii: 12 — 15; viii: 11, &c.) Hence we read of 
nfrst and an oldy. of a second and a nexo covenant. 
(Heb. viii: 7—9, 13.) 

Q. 2. What do you understand by "types and 
shadows?" 

A. That the contents, among other matters, of 
the ceremonial law — many things and circumstances 
connected with facts relating to the Patriarchs and 
ancient Israel — were either figures of Christ, of his 
Disciples,, or of the Christian Church and her Relig- 
ion, and mostly answered the end of religious infor- 
mation, in portraying, to them, in a similar manner, 
as some of the facts embraced in the ordinances of 
the New Testament, do to us. A type or shadow,, 
then, is that by which something future [the antitype] 
was prefigured, containing the mode or action, or the 
substance of religious information. 

Q. 3. What benefit was the contents of the cere- 
monial law to the Jews ? 

A. It either pointed out to them their own im- 
purities and defilements, or the benefits that were to 
be purchased by the advent of the Messiah in the 
flesh. 



€hap.l. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 36 

Q. 4. \7fiat do you mean by "the ceremonial 
law having passed aivay, because of the symbolic 
use of other*, as more substantial of the substance 
of religious information 1 " 

A. That its contents have answered the end of 
their invention, as externals, in pointing out spiritual 
things, until the King Messiah had completed the 
plan of salvation; and that as soon as that was accom- 
plished, they could no longer serve as figures [as 
they then did] of practice for things to come, and 
that thus terminated those ceremonies. Yet, it 
must be remembered, that their present use, with all 
other types and shadows, are of vast importance to 
the Christian world— -serving as figures of instruc- 
tion in the interpretation of all such passages of 
scripture upon which they have a bearing. 

Q. 5. What further proof have you that the con- 
contents of the ceremonial law have all been abro- 
gated ? 

A. This. From not only new and different ex- 
ternals having been instituted from those found in the 
Mosaic ritual, but their use made a duty, and actu- 
ally commanded, by the Lord Jesus Christ. More- 
over, "The priesthood being changed, there is made 
of necessity a change, also, in the [ceremonial] 
law." (Heb. vii: 11—19.) 

Q. 6. In what do these externals in the Christian 
church, consist? 

A. In Christian Baptism and the Lord's Sup- 
per. 

Q. 7. In room of what two principal ceremonies 
in the Mosaic ritual do these two come ? 

A. Not only in room of all the Mosaic ceremo- 

w 



26 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part I. 

niesj but more particularly has Baptism come in 
room of Circumcision, and the Lord's Supper in 
room of the Pascal Lamb. (John i: 29; 1 Cor. v: 7.) 



SECTION VI. 



THE COVENANT OF GBACE. 



Q. 1. Where do we find the origin of the Gospel 
Covenant presented and based only upon promises ? 

A. In the Garden of Eden, immediately after the 
fall. Gen. iii: 15, God says, "I will put enmity be- 
tween thee [the serpent] and the woman, and be- 
tween thy seed [the wicked, John viii: 44,] and her 
seed^ [the pious, 1 John v: 4;] it [the Messiahs per- 
sonally, and his dwelling in the pious, [Phil, ii: 5; 
Rom. viii: 9; John xv: 5;] shall bruise thy head J' 

Q. 2. "With whom was this promise renewed ? 

A. With Abraham. (Gen.xii: 2—4; xv: 1, 4,6.) 

Q. 3. What became connected with the renewal 
of this promise ? 

A. Promises embracing temporal blessings. (Gen. 
xii: 1—3, 7; xiii: 14; xv: 18.) 

Q. 4. In what were the latter finally included ? 

A. In a covenant made with that Patriarch. (Gen. 
xv: 18.) 

Q. 5. When did the spiritual promises become 
interwoven as a part of this covenant? 

A. Not until God spake to Abraham, in Gen. xvii. 
This circumstance accounts for the language in Gen. 
xvii: 2, when God said "I will make my covenant 
between me and thee/' [Abraham,] after having al- 



Chap. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 27 

ready been informed that he had made a covenant 
with him. This promise, the promise of the Mes- 
siah, with a sign or token, (Gen. xvii: 11,) and seal 
(Rom. iv: 11,) then annexed, made the covenant of 
so much importance, and of such a nature, that the 
Almighty himself, by this, its completion, could then 
only look upon it, as then made, completed, 

Q. 6. What was this covenant finally termed ? 

A. "The Covenant of Circumcision.?' (Actsvii: 
8.) 

Q. 7. But can you give clear and positive testimo- 
ny that all these promises in Gen. iii: 15; xii: 2 — 4; 
xv : 1, 4,6; xii: 1 — 3, 7; xiii: 14; xv: 18, were all em- 
braced in the Covenant of Circumcision ? 

A. It is clear — absolutely certain — because, 

First — the language in these texts, Gen. iii: 15; xii: 
2 — 4; xv : 1, 4, 6, all refer to the Messiah; and it is 
also as obvious and incontrovertible that Circumci- 
sion is of the same spiritual nature; speaking, among 
other things, similar facts by & figure. 

Second — the temporal promises are in complete 
harmony with the temporal part of the Covenant of 
of Circumcision. Gen. xvii: 8. 1. They are the 
rehearsal of former temporal things covenanted. — 
Gen. xii: 1 — 3, 7; xiii: 14; xv: 18. 2. Canaan was a 
figure of a spiritual location in a better world — 
Heaven. 

Q. 8. What, then, may the Covenant of Circum- 
cision be further scripturally termed ? 

A. The Gospel Covenant. 

Q. 9. How will you prove it ? 

A. First — from plain and positive declarations of 
scripture, that those under the Covenant of Circum- 



28 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part \. . 

oision had the Gospel preached. Second — from a 
more full examination of the nature of the Covenant 
of Circumcision. 

Q. 10. Can you make good your assertion that 
Hhose under the Covenantof Circumcision had the 
gospel preached ? > 

A. Certainly. We would, however, here merely 
say, before we refer to scripture testimony, 

First — It is incontrovertible, that whosoever have 
had presented to them the mercy of God, originating 
out of the gift of the Savior, have had the gospel 
preached to them. 

Second — it is then certain, 1. Adam had it preach- 
ed. (Gen. iii: 15.) 2. Abraham , before, (Gen. xii: 
2 — 4,) and after the institution of the Covenant of 
Circumcision; (Gen. xxii: 17 — 19; Gal. iii: S, &c. 3. 
Abraham's posterity; (Deut. xviii: 15, IS; Acts vii: 
37; Ps. xvi: 8 &c; Acts ii: 25—29; Isa. Iii: 1, &c.; 
53, &c; Heb. iv: 2 — 12.) 

Q. 11. How will you prove c from a more full ex- 
amination of the nature of the Covenant of Circumci- 
sion,' that it may be 'further scripturally termed llxe 
Gospel Covenant ?' 

A. From the fact that it embraces gospel rights and 
privileges. God says, Gen. xvii: 2, "I will make my 
covenant between me and thee; and in the rehearsal 
of facts he tells Abraham, v. 7, < ; I will establish my 
covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after 
thee in their genearations, for an* everlasting coven- 
ant, to be a God anto thee and thy seed after thee . ' 
then, we can find a scriptural posterity , a gene?-atio)i 
of Abraham, we have carried our point. St. Paul, ii, 
Rom. iv: 11, informs us that Abraham is "the father 



■'-■Chap. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 29 

of all them that believe." In Gal. iii: 7, "that they 
who are of faith, the same are the children of Abra- 
ham." He says "there is neither Jew nor Greek, nei- 
ther bond nor free; there is neither male nor female : 
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus: and if ye be Christ's 
» then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to 
the promise." (Gal, iii: 28, 29.) "Now, we breth- 
ren, as Isaae was, are the children of promise." (Gal. 
iv: 28.) "I will establish my covenant," says God, 
"with/ii77i \_Isaac~] for an everlasting covenant, and 
with his seed after him." (Gen. xvii: 19.) "We," 
he still continues, "are not children of the bond- 
woman, but of the free." (Gal. iv: 21.) Hence we 
have not only a legal, legitimate posterity of Abra- 
ham, by Sarah, through the lineage of Isaac, with 
whom God established his covenant, (Gen. xvii: 9^) 
but a generation in covenanted relation, without lim- 
itation, and therefore termed an 'everlasting coven- 
ant.' The natural, the only conclusion, then, is, 
that this covenant cannot cease to exist, so long as 
there is a vestige of the spiritual (Rom, viii: 14; ix: 
6 — 10) posterity of Abraham to be found. The Cov- 
enant of Circumcision, then, has been justly and 
properly tested to be The Gospel Covenant. 

Q. 12. What, then, can alone render null and 
void the Covenant of Circumcision ? 

A. Nothing short of the entire nonentity of Abra- 
ham's spiritual posterity. Then, too, and not till 
then, will Abraham cease to be the Father of the 
Faithful, and God, as the unscriptural result, (Math, 
xvi: 18,) without a People — the Church extinct. 

Q. 13. But does not the formation of the New 
Covenant abrogate the Covenant of Circumcision? 



30 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part I. 

A. By no means. When God speaks of a New 
Covenant, (Jer. xxxi: 31 — 38; Heb. viii: 6, &c.; xii: 
24,) he always refers to the Covenant of which Christ 
is the more immediate Mediator, with a different 
ministry, in contradistinction to the Covenant made 
with his People, of which Moses was the personal 
Mediator, with aLevitical order of officiating priests. 
As one, therefore, was thus rendered new, and has 
new and different ceremonies or externals, as well as 
another, and a more glorious personal Mediator than 
the other; therefore, that then made is termed Old, 
(Heb. ix: 7, 9, 13,) and the other New; (Heb. ix: 8, 
13;) and thus the New Covenant can neither super- 
sede nor destroy the spiritual import of the Covenant 
of Circumcision, any more than the external part, the 
sign, and that connected with the token or seal signi- 
fied. 

Q. 14. What were the conditions of the Covenant 
of Circumcision 1 

A. First — on the part of God they were, 1. The 
promise of a numerous progeny. (Gen. xvii: 2, 5, 
16.) 2. The promise of the Land of Canaan [v. 8] 
which was typical of Heaven. 3. The promise of 
the Messiah. This is evident from the expressions 
found in Gen. xvii: 6, "and Kings shall come out of 
thee." Again, [v. 16,] "Kings of People shall be of 
her." It must be admitted that the greatest King 
among the kings of the Jews was the Messiah.— ~ 
He, then, as King, and particularly on account of 
the greatness of his character, if any be embraced, is 
held up in these conditions. But once more, the 
conditions say, "To be a God unto thee and thy 
seed after thee." It is, however, certain, that God 



Chap. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 31 

could not be "A God," either to Abraham or to his 
seed, out of Christ. (Rom. v: 10 — 12; Eph. ii: 16.) 
Hence, "the Covenant that was confirmed before 
(Gen.xii: 3; Acts iii; 25,) of God in Christ," (Gal. iii: 
13 — 20) was [as already seen] embraced in the Cov- 
enant of Circumcision. This, then, again, is testi- 
mony that the Covenant of Circumcision is the Gospel 
Covenant. 

Second— on the part of man it was perfect obedi- 
ence. Gen. xvii: 1, 2. God says, "Walk before 
me, and be thou perfect, and I will make my coven- 
ant between me and thee." GaL v: 3. "Every 
man that is circumcised — is a. debtor to do tlie whole 
law" — moral, ceremonial and civil. This implied, 
1. Moral fitness. Hence the covenant was made 
"with Abraham, and his seed by Sarah. Moreover, it 
cannot be denied, but Abraham, Sarah, and an in- 
fant seed were on a spiritual level, (Math, xviii: 3,) 
morally fit for this covenanted relation, and that they 
as parents, were of proper spiritual qualifications to 
enter into covenanted engagements. 2. The mor- 
tification of the flesh. (Deut. x: 16; Jer. iv: 4.) 3. 
Conversion. (Deut. xxx: 6; Rom. ii: 28, 29.) 4. 
Faith in the Promises of God, &c. (Rom, iv: 4; iii: 
30.) 

-Q. 15. Did the Covenant of Circumcision embrace 
females as well as males ? 

A. Certainly. It is obvious, from the fact that a 
similar notice is taken in the covenanted engagements 
of Sarah as of Abraham. God certainly embraced 
also their infant female, as well as their infant male 
seed, when he says, Gen. xvii: 7, "I will establish 
my covenant between me and thee [v. 6, 16; 5, 15] 



: SB CHRISTIAN BAPTISM Parti. 

and thy seed [are females here excepted ?] after thee, 
in their generations, [would it not be g singular gen- 
eration without females?] for an everlasting coven- 
ant, to be a God unto thee, [surely U Sarah, also!] 
and to thy seed [male and female} after thee." 

Q. 16. What do you make of the expression in 
Gen. xvii: 14? 

A. That the children of such parents as stood in 
covenanted relation with God, belonged to the People 
of God before they were circumcised; hence, born in 
the church, or it could not have been said, "The 
ancircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin 
is not circumcised, that that soul shall be cut off 
from his people," if they never belonged to them un- 
til circumcised. 

Q. 17. What do you understand, in a general 
point of view, by the expression, in Gen. xvii: 7, 
"To be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee ? » 

A. That he would not only be a God -to Abra- 
ham, but to all saints on earth after him, that should 
either be his natural or adopted children. (Rom. iv: 
11— 14; Gal. iv: 4— -8.) 

Q. 18. What do you make of the covenanted re- 
lation of those strangers (Gen. xvii: If — 14) "bought 
with money V* 

A. That they, as their domestics^ as they were 
thus brought under religious influence, were entitled 
to circumcision. Henee God required it. These 
were brought into covenanted relatu :i to God by in- 
itiation, because born of parents^ uncircumcised. 
Their children, however, begotten aj :r their initia- 
tion, were born in the church. 

Q- 19. Did, then, the Covenant* f Circumcision 



Chap. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. "38 

thus partake of a two-fold nature — of gome being 
born in the church, whilst it naturally permitted 
others of being initiated ? 

A. This is so obvious, that one would have sup* 
posed none could have ever overlooked it. A man- 
ifest evidence that the nature of this covenant was 
never properly examined. (Gen. xvii: 12 — 14; Ps. 
lxxxvii: 5 — 7.) 

Q. 20. How does the temporal part of the bless* 
ings of this covenant (Gen. xvii: 8,) compare with 
New Testament light ? 

A. So j fully, that gospel is gospel under both dis- 
pensations. It does not exclude temporal good, 
Neither do the temporal blessings destroy the spirit- 
ual import of the former dispensation, more than the 
latter. What is embraced in the temporal part 5 
in Gen. xvii: 8, is taught in Math v: 5. The 
true Israelites (Rom. ix: 6; iii: 28, 29) were then to 
possess the land; and ndw "the meek shall inherit the 
earth; 1 ' i. e.fall heir to, possess, enjoy it. Spiritual 
blessings, then, entitle to earthly enjoyments, until 
the full and perfect fruition of all blessings are real- 
ized in Heaven. 

Q. 21. What do we, as a whole, more fully learn 
from the nature of this covenant ? 

A. First — that all the pious, and their innocent 
children, previously to Abraham, and especially he, 
stood spiritually in covenanted relation with God long 
before he had received circumcision, as the sign or 
token, and seal of the stipulations of the covenant. 

Second — that we are the adopted children of Abra- 
ham, as soon as converted, and that we then, byvir- 
tue of cur birth, [conversion,] as children ofAbra- 

m 



34 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part\> 

Iham, with our innocent children, stand in covenant- 
ed relation with God, and hence are all entitled to the 
sign or token and seal of the covenant. 

Third — that all innocent children, that the chil- 
dren of Abraham, [the converted,] may adopt into 
their families, to rear and educate, [on such adop* 
tion, Gen. xvii: 12 — 15,] are by virtue of the religi- 
ous influence under which they are thus brought, 
und upon the principle of their own moral fitness, 
the children of Abraham, in covenanted relation with 
God, and like ourselves and our innocent children, en- 
titled to the sign or token, and seal of the covenant. 

Fourth — -that all those who are willing, through 
conviction ofsin b to come under religious influence, 
then stand, and their innocent children with them, 
in covenanted relation with God; and according to the 
stipulations of the covenant, (Gen. xvii: 13,) are en- 
titled to the sign or token and seal of the covenant; 
but cannot become spiritually, even after having re- 
ceived the sign or token and seal, any more than the 
Jews [Rom. ix: 6, except the innocent among them] 
the children of Abraham, until converted. 

Q. 21. What light do the doctrines of the New 
Testament throw on the nature of this covenant ? 

A. This: As all externals (Heb. vii: 12, &c.,) 
have been changed, and water icisely chosen instead 
of circumcision, as the present sign or token and 
seal of the covenant, we see that the design of the 
administration of Christian Baptism, by the use of 
water, was intended, not only intelligibly, and em- 
phatically to portray the fundamental principles or 
order of salvation, but also to develope more fully 
the nature of the Gospel Covenant. 



Chap. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 35 

Q. 23. What light does the nature of this coven- 
ant throw on the subject of Christian Baptism? 

A. This: That Christian Baptism is and is not 
initiatory — depending upon the nature of things: 

First — it is initiatory — 1. To all such adult persons 
who are baptised under the conviction of their sins. 
The reason, — they were either born of persons out 
of the church, or of others equally as wicked, who 
suffered them to be "cut off from his people," (Gen. 
xvii: 14,) by the neglect of their baptisms. Baptism 
among other things, to such, is a sign or token and 
seal, under the further use of the means of grace, of 
their final spiritual adoption into the family of Abra- 
ham. 

2. To all such adult persons, who are baptised af- 
ter conversion: but who either were born of parents 
out of the church, or, &c. [See above.] Baptism, 
among other things, to all such, is" a sign or token 
and seal of their former spiritual adoption [conver- 
sion] into the family of Abraham. 

3. To all such children, born to parents, before 
the initiation of one or both. 

4. To all such innocent children, born to parents, 
before the initiation of one or both of them, that the 
pious may adopt into their family, or household, to 
rear and educate. 

Second — it is not initiatory. To all such innocent 
children, born to parents, when one or both were 
baptized in innocency, or after the initiation of one 
or both, whilst one or both are bearing testimony of 
being in a state of grace. These are, by virtue of 
their birth, and by expectation of being brought un- 
der religious influence, born in the church. 



SECTION VII Parth 



' CIRCUMCISION, THE SIGN OR TOKEN, AND SEAL OF 
THE COVENANT* 



Q. 1. What was the sign or token, and seal of 
the Covenant of Circumcision ? 

A. It was an incif ion that separated the foreskin: 
Gen. xvii: 11; Ex. iV: 25: "Ye shall circumcise the 
flesh of your foreskin: and it shall be a token of the 
covenant betwixt me and you." 

Q. 2. What do you understand by the expression 
"it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and 
you?" 

A. That it should particularly be a sign or token 
and seal, (Rom. iv: 11,) in their flesh, of the veracity 
of God, among other things, in granting them, by 
propagation, a Redeemer. 

Q. 3. But what do you understand by the act it- 
self, and what was it intended to represent ? 

A. In the act of circumcising, there was a cvtting 
off of the foreskin, suffering- and shedding of blood, 
which was to teach the Jews, that when the prom- 
ised seed (Gen. xii: 2 — 4) should appear in the flesh, 
as the Messiah- of the world, he would be cut off by 
death, suffer and shed his blood for them, that they 
might, through obedience, (Gen. xvii: 1,) be recon- 
ciled to God, and live forever. 

Q. 4. Why were males, and not females, requir- 
ed to wear this token, or symbolization, which was 
to be accomplished in the promised seed, that was to 
appear, as Redeemer, in the flesh ? 

A. Because every male could externally in per- 
son represent the Savior of the world, as he was te 
appear hi the flesh; and as one person only, and tfcftl I 



CUp. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 37 

snale, was to come forth from that particular stock or 
branch of the human family, as Redeemer. Hence, 
every male was required to be circumcised, whilst 
the personal deficiency of the female, deprived her 
of wearing the badge of the promise. Had it been 
otherwise, then there would also have been a repre- 
sentation of two Messiahs, a male and a female. 

Q. 5. What was Circumcision? 

A. The distinguishing token of God's People. 

Q. 6. How were females distinguished by this 
sign or token ? 

A. By the circumcision of the males. Abraham 
was no sooner circumcised, than Sarah was, also. 
This is clear, from the fact that the promise washers 
(Gen. xvii: 16) as well as his, [V. 6.] Sarai's name 
was changed to Sarah, as well as Abram's to Abra- 
ham. [V. 5.] Reference is had, in scripture, to 
her faith, (Heb. xi: 11,) as well as to his. (Rom. iv: 
19.) She is held up as the mother, (Gal. iv: 3,) as 
well as he the father of the faithful. (Rom. iv: 11 
— 13.) Thus, then, they both must have entered, 
by circumcision, into covenanted relation with God, 
and he with them. Therefore, the token, in his 
flesh, of the covenanted engagements, (Gal. v: 3) the 
seal of his faith, (Rom. iv: 11, or had Sarah none?) 
and the sign of the veracity of God, in the fulfilment 
of the promised Messiah, (Gen. xvii: 6, 16,) were 
hers as well as his; and if hers, she was circumcised, 
as well as her husband. 

Q. 7. But how did circumcision become the dis- 
tinguishing token of infant females ? 

A. In Gen. xvii: 10 we read, "This is my coven- 
ant which ye shall keep,- [adult females, as well ae 



38 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part i, 

adult males] between me and you, and thy seed [tby 
infant female, as well as thy infant male seed,] after 
thee: Every man-child among you shall be circum- 
cised." It is then certain, infant females, as well as 
infant males, were embraced, and adult females 
were as much bound as adult males, to see to the 
circumcision of their male children. Now in Gen. 
xvii: 11 God positively declares circumcision to be 
the sign or token of the covenant. Then circum- 
cision, the sign or token worn by the males, was the 
sign or token of the infant females; for God has said 
eo. Then it is as certain, also, that parents had a 
seal of the righteousness of their faith (Rom. iv: 11) 
for their infant females, as well as for their infant 
males. Thus, then, the cases of males and females 
were similar; consequently, the infant females were 
as really and as substantially circumcised, as the 
infant males, although they did not wear the badge 
of the promise, as the sign or token and seal, that 
God, by propagation, would give them a Redeemer. 

Q. 8. Do you not thus make circumcision an ob- 
ject of faith? v 

A. Certainly; all that were circumcised were re- 
quired to be Circumcised, either on their own, or 
the faith of their parents; (Gen. xvii: 23, &c.;) there- 
fore circumcision was "a seal of the righteousness of 
faith." (Rom. iv: 11.) 

Q. 9. When were infant males acknowledged by 
circumcision as God's subjects ? 

A. On the eighth day from their birth. Gen. 
xvii: 1.2. "He that is eight days old shall be cir- 
cumcised among you, every man-child in your gen- 
erations." 



tTnnp. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 3S 

Q. 10. Can you give the reason it was not done 
sooner ? 

A. The purityof the church Forbade it, because of 
the impurity of the subject. Lev. xii: 2. "If a wo- 
man have conceived seed, and bear a man-child, 
then shall she be unclean seven days; according to 
the days of her separation for her infirmity shall she 
be unclean." Then in Job, xiv: 4, inquiry is made, 
and an answer given, that clears up this subject: 
"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? 
not one." Hence, the child was unclean seven 
days. But in Lev. xii: 3 we are told, "In the eighth 
day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised." 

Q. 11. But when were infant females acknowl- 
edged by this rite as God's subjects? 

A. Two weeks from their birth. Lev. xii: 5. 
"But if she bear a maid-child, then shall she be un- 
clean two weeks, as in her separation." It was, 
then, as female children were unclean fourteen days, 
that on the fifteenth day from their birth, the sign or 
token and seal of the promise, by the faith of pa- 
rents, became theirs, and it was then that they were 
as really circumcised as the males at eight days. 

Q. 12. But do you not thus bring an objection 
against infant children having been born in the 
church ? 

A. By no means. If their impurity should have 
debarred them from having been born in the church, 
then, whenever a Jew was rendered unclean (Num. 
xix: 11) he must have been out of the church, and 
consequently out of covenanted relation with God; 
which is absurd. 

Q, 13, But if their impurity debarred them from 



40 CHRISTIAN 3APTISM. Parti. 

being ackowledged by this rite, how, if they died in 
this state, acknowledged in Heaven ? 

A. This impurity was not attached to the soul, 
but to the body; hence, the spirit in death, when re- 
leased from its clayey tenement, was through Christ 
rendered immaculate. 

Q. 14. What did circumcision teach the Jewish 
church externally to exhibit? 

A. What it internally was intened to represent: 
1. As being cut off from the world; and hence having 
entirely put away the impurities of the flesh. 2. 
Their willingness to render perfect obedience to 
God for all physical and spiritual mercies conferred: 
to whom they looked for eternal redemption. 

Q. 15. Did parents, by circumcision, put their 
children under moral obligation ? 

A. This God did, in the person of Abraham, even 
before they were born: making the parents only the 
instruments in carrying it into effect. Those, then, 
who cannot endure this legislation, cannot endure an 
enactment of God. St. Paul also informs us. Gal. v: 
3, that "Every man [was not every woman? ?] that 
is circumcised — is a debtor to do the whole law." 
God's design, then, by the institution of this rite, 
was to show parents the duty, that as soon as their 
children were capable of moral action, they were 
bound to bring them under moral and religious 
restraint, and that their children, by a com- 
pliance with the same, could only be rendered 
happy. 

Q. 16. Was it then a sin when parents neglected 
this rite ? 

A. It was; for it is said, Gen. xvii: 14, "The un- 



Wmp.1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 41 

•circumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is 
not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his 
people: [unchurched:] he hatli broken my coven- 
ant." Parents, then, who, by neglect, failed to put 
Circumcision, the sign or token and seal of the cov- 
nant, in the flesh of their child, despised its stipula- 
tions, and not only brought the child to break the 
covenant made with it, as was ratified m the person 
of Abraham, but also, by this ungodly act, threw it 
externally out of covenanted relation with God, into 
a state with the heathen — "cut offfrom his people" 
— »-and now, as all moral and religious restraint was 
hopeless, lie must cut that soul off by death, in order 
to save the child, and if possible, to reclaim the pa- 
rents. (Ex. iv: 23 — 27.) This was certainly an un- 
scriptural state in which to place an innocent child, 
and hence a sin. 

Q. 17. Was it a sin for ungodly parents to have 
their children circumcised ? 

A. Most certainly; as they were thus destitute of 
piety or moral fitness, they were disqualified to com- 
ply with the stipulations of the covenant; made a 
false profession, and thus had the mere shadow of 
being Israelites, without a spark of the substance. — ■ 
(Rom. ix: 6.) 

Q. 18. Why then should God have made circum- 
cision a duty on all ? 

A. Because all might have been qualified, had 
they only been honest with God, themselves, and 
their children. 

Q. 19. Did a mere nominal profession of the pa- 
rents destroy the validity of circumcision ? 

A. As the validity did not depend upon the piety 
of the parents ; nor upon the sanctity of the circum- 



42 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part V 

ciser, but upon the thing signified, therefore it did 
not destroy the validity of circumcision. 

Q. 20. Was circumcision commanded ? 

A. It was. Gen. xvii: 10: "Every man-child 
among you shall be circumcised. " [V. 17:] "My 
covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting 
covenant." [V. 14:] " And the uncircumcised man- 
child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, 
that soul shall be cut off from his people: he hath 
broken my covenant." 

Q. 21. Can an express scriptural command be 
produced of a whole family having been circum- 
cised ? 

A. In Gen. xvii: 12 — 17, an express command 
was given. We have also an account of its compli- 
ance. 

Q. 22. Upon whose faith was this family cir- 
cumcised ? 

A. Upon the faith and moral fitness of Abraham 
and Sarah. 

Q. 23. By whom was circumcision performed ? 

A. Abraham, as a Patriarch and officiating Priest, 
attended to his own house. (Gen. xvii: 23; xxi: 4.) 
Again, we are informed, (Josh, v: 3 &c.) that Joshua 
as one authorized (Deut. xxxiv: 9; to officiate in sa- 
cred things, circumcised [i. e., attended to it in per- 
son, or saw it done,] "all the people — born in the 
wilderness." The information on this subject, then, 
although but little, goes in favor of the circumciser 
having had, not his own assumed, but divine author- 
ity to officiate in this matter. 

Q. 4. Why then was Zipporah, (Ex. iv: 23—27,) 
the wife of Moses, permitted to circumcise her son ? 

A. It is certain, she had no legal, divine grant. 



Chap. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 43 

She was opposed to the rite. (Ex. iv: 25; 2 Cor. vi: 
14; 1 Cor. vii: 39.) To ward off, however, the right- 
eous judgment of Heaven, and secure the life of her 
son, in a terrified state of mind, not only yields, but 
actually circumcises her child. This, then, is no 
proof of an optional officiation. The circumstances 
of John's circumcision, (Luke i: 59 — 67,) go also to 
show that parents even of priestly order, under the 
Mosaic ritual, did not circumcise their own chil- 
dren. 

Q. 25. Where was the circumcision of Jewish 
children performed ? 

A. From the circumstances of John and Christ's 
circumcisions, (Luke i: 59 — 64; ii: 21,) and the na- 
ture of the law of purification, (Lev. xii: 4,) it must 
have been performed at home. 

Q. 26. Why was Christ circumcised ? 

A. Because he was the entire substance of the en. 
tire figure of instruction, circumcision, (Rom. ii: 28, 
29,) the end of the sign or token, and seal of the cov- 
enant, and, as a man, stood in covenanted relation 
with God. Hence it is said, Gal. iv: 4, he was 
"made of a woman, made under the law," even 
the ceremonial, as well as the civil and moral, (Gal. 
v: 3,) to change the former, to perfect the latter; 
to extend the civil upon the principles of the moral; 
and in person, by his sufferings and death, to verify 
the promises, (Gen. xii: 2 — 4; xvii: 7; Gal. hi: 8; iv: 
6 — 8; Rom. xv: 8,) on the part of God, in all things 
relating to the conditions of the covenant. 

Q. 27. When were names given to the Jewish 
children ? 

A. At the time they were circumcised. (Luke 
.;: 59 — 64; ii: 21.) This practice, doubtless, origina- 



44 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Parti, 

ted from the fact that God changed the names of 
Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah, when he 
entered into covenanted relation with them, and 
their seed after them. (Gen. xvii: 5, 15.) 

Q. 28. Why was there so little attention paid to 
this rite, during the journey of the Israelites in the 
wilderness ? 

A. That is a thing not revealed in the Word of God. 

Q. 29. Was ever a subject circumcised a second 
time? 

A. No, never!! The expression, Josh, v: 2, 
" circumcise again the children of Israel the second 
time," had reference, not to a second act of per- 
forming this rite upon individuals upon whom it had 
already been once performed: but when it is said, 
"circumcise again — the second time," it is meant 
in point of duty; as having been required, and previ- 
ously done, to having left Egypt, where it had been 
neglected, which was termed the first time, [v. 5,] 
and then it was said to have been "the second time;" 
[v. 8 — 10,] because it was then to be performed on 
those born in the wilderness. 

Q. 30. Under what circumstances was circumci- 
sion only initiatory ? 

A. Under no others than when Abraham and his 
family entered into covenanted relation with God, 
when strangers bought with money, and such other 
strangers as may have become proselytes to the 
Jewish religion, were circumcised. All others, as 
already seen, ( and their children, after such parents' 
initiation, were born in the church. 

Q. 31. Was ever any one permitted to eat of the 
Passover, without having been first circumcised ? 

A. No, never!! (Ex. xii: 48.) 



map. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 45 

Q. 22. Was circumcision meritorious to salva- 
tion ? 

A. No. Had God made it such, he would have 
placed tho salvation of souls in the hands of men. 

Q. 33. Has Circumcision, the sign or token, and 
seal, been abrogated ? 

A. It has. (Gal. v: 2.) "Behold, I Paul say un- 
to you that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit 
you nothing. (Acts xv: 1 — 30.) 

Q. 34. How long was circumcision perpetuated ? 

A. Until the establishment of the Christian 
Church. 



SECTION VIII. 



THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 
AND HOW BAPTISM COMES IN ROOM OF CIRCUMCI- 
SION. 



Q. 1. When did the establishment of the Chris- 
tian Church permanently take place ? 

A. On the day of Pentecost, after the outpouring 
of the Holy Ghost, when about three thousand souls, 
by water Baptism, were added to the Church. (Acts 
ii: 1—5, 16—19, 32—34, 41.) 

Q. 2. Were these the first that were baptized by 
Christian Baptism ? 

A. Nothing more certain. 

Q. 3. How will you make that appear ? 

A. From the fact that Christian Baptism was not 
instituted till after the resurrecci'on, and just before 
the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then, and 
not before, was it said, Math, xxviii: 19, "Go ye, 



46 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part ft. 

therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost," with, however, this restriction: Luke 
xxiv: 49: "But tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until 
ye be endowed with power from on high." With 
this they complied: for it is said, Luke xxiv: 52,. 
"They-— returned to Jerusalem with great joy;" 
where they abode until the "day of Pentecost was 
fully come," when they were miraculously, by the 
outpouring of the Holy Ghost, qualified for the suc- 
cessful accomplishment of the commission (Math* 
xxviii: 19) with which they were entrusted. Imme- 
diately after this glorious display of the fulfilment of 
prophecy, (Joel ii: 28 — 32; Math: iii: 11; Luke xxiv: 
49,) we are informed, they baptized. (Acts ii: 41.) 
As they then really obeyed the Savior, and have giv- 
en us no other baptisms on record, and as they were 
restricted to a certain time, the conclusion is irresist- 
ible that the three thousand were the first baptized 
by the Apostolic commission. (Acts ii: 41.) 

Q. 4. What other evidence have we that these 
were the first baptised by this divine authority ? 

A. This: As Christian Baptism is a sign or to- 
ken of the love of God the Father; of the efficacy of 
the shed blood of the Son of God, and of the effects 
and influence of the Holy Ghost; and as the miraculous 
display of the love of God the Father in the gift of his 
Son, and the efficacy of the shed blood of the Son 
of God had only been exhibited, the Apostles could 
not, they dare not, baptize in the name of the Holy 
Trinity, until after the miraculous display of the Holy 
Ghost's effects and influence was also manifested to 
the world; and therefore the three thonsand were 
the first subjects of Christian Baptism. It was then, 



47 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Parti. 

and not till then, that God could emblematically 
show, by Water Baptism, or the use of the Apostolic 
commission, what he, as a Triune Being, had done 
for the salvation of poor fallen man. 

Q. 5. But why did the sign or token and seal, 
Circumcision, in its use here cease ? 

A. Because it had served the end of its invention, 
as a sign or token and seal, in the flesh, through the 
advent of the promised seed, the Messiah, in prefig- 
uring his being cutoff by death, his suffering, and his 
shedding his blood, for man. Hence Circumcision 
could not, from the very nature of things, continue to 
be emblematic of facts to come that were already 
past, and in themselves complete. Consequently, 
the sign or token and seal, Circumcision, here ceas- 
ed, (Gal. v: 2,) and Water, in Christian Baptism, as 
a sign or token and seal of the covenant, was taken 
instead or room of Circumcision. 

Q. 6. Does, then, Water Baptism come instead 
or room of Circumcision ? ! 

A. This is is not only certain, from the above an- 
swer, but even undeniable. When we remember 
that, when Circumcision, as a sign or token and seal 
of the covenant established with Abraham and his 
seed, could no longer serve the end of portraying 
what God was about to do for the salvation of man, 
as all now having been done in and through the arrival 
and mission of the Messiah, that then the Lord chose 
something else instead of it, as the sign or token and 
seal of the covenant, evenwm^r, as used in Christian 
Baptism, to be emblematic of what he had done.— - 
As nothing, as a sensible sign or token and seal, 
could teach so emphatically and forcibly the mani- 
ftsiation of what each person in the Holy Trinity 



Ohfip. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 48 

liad separately declared as necessary to salvation, 
and which each was now willing to accomplish for 
immortal souls, this element was chosen to be applied 
to the subject, in the name of the Father, in token 
of his love, in the gift of his Son; in the name of the 
Son, in token of the efficacy of his shed blood, and in 
the name of the Holy Ghost, in token of his effects and 
influence. This is then again testimony to the point 
that Baptism comes in room of Circumcision. 

Q. 7. Can you, however, give any additional ev- 
idence on this subject? 

A. Abundance of it: 

1. c Ifthe covenant made with Abraham* and his 
seed 'was the covenant of grace,' as has been abun- 
dantly tested, 'then Baptism must be' the sign or to- 
ken and 'seal of the same covenant, and must have 
been instituted in room of Circumcision, just as the 
Lord's Supper was instituted in room of the ancient 
Passover.' 

2. 'Was Circumcision the Sacrement,' whereby 
God acknowledged his subjects under the Old dis- 
pensation? 'So is Baptism,' under the New. 'Was 
Circumcision a badge of relation to the God of Is- 
rael ? So is Baptism to Christ' and God now. Was 
Circumcision the sign or token of salvation or deliv- 
erance to the People. of God then? So is Baptism 
now. 'And was Circumcision' the sign or token and 
seal of the covenant of grace, and of the righteous- 
ness of faith? So is Baptism. The analogy in these, 
and many other particulars that might be mention- 
ed, plainly shows that Baptism was instituted in room 
of Circumcision. 

3. 'If Baptism does not come in room of Circum- 
cision, then we have no ordinance answering to that 



'Ckap.1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. tf© 

.Jewish rite; and consequently the Christian Church, 
by the coming of Christ, has been deprived of a sa- 
crament which was reckoned of singular advantage 
under the Jewish dispensation; for the profit of cir- 
cumcision, the Apostle asserts (Acts iii: 1 — 3) ii was 
much every way ;" and if so, the Christian Church 
has lost much every way, by having nothing appoint- 
ed in its stead.' 

Q. 8. But what testimony, of a living, general 
• character, have we, that Baptism comes instead or 
room of Circumcision? 

A. Every objection of every objector to Infant 
Baptism. The testimony rests upon the fact, that 
these two rites are so much alike, that the wicked 
Jews might have brought similar objections to In- 
fant Circumcision, to those which are now brought 
against infant Baptism, viz: — 1. Are not children 
born in the Church ? 2. What benefit the cutting 
off of a little of the foreskin — the circumcision of 
unconscious babes? 3. Why bring them under 
moral obligation, contrary to their own free will ? 
4. They cannot be taught, believe, repent. 5. 
Are they any better than others ? 6. Who knows 
how wicked they may become? 7. Why not cir- 
cumcise all those of the heathen? 8. How do you 
know that you were circumcised at eight days? 9. 
Will circumcision make them any better ? 10. Will 
others be lost, because not circumcised? 

Q. 9. Why, then, did St. Paul — Acts xvi : 
1 — 4 — circumcise, after the establishment of the 
^Christian Church, a certain disciple named Timo- 
.theus ? 

A. This St. Paul done, not because Circumcision 



50 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, Part T. 

was any longer of a religious character.* (Heb. viir 
1*1—13.) The design of this act he himself states. 
He says he did it "Because of the Jews who were in 
those quarters."' Consequently, if they had not been 
there, he would not have done it. He then does 
not say that he continued it, because it was still of 
the fathers, and that it then yet served as the sign 
or token and seal of the covenant. Far from it. 
(See Gal. v: 6, 11; vi: 15* 1 Cor. vii: 19; ix: 20—24; 
x: 32, &c.) He then complies with this act of ac- 
commodation, in order to allay the prejudices of the 
Jews, (Acts xii: 1 — 19,) so that the gospel ministry 
might not be curtailed. 

Q. 10. But if Baptism comes in room of Circum- 
cision, why not baptize children on the eighth day? 

A. Because, "The priesthood being changed, 
there is made of necessity a change also in the law;' 5 
(Heb. vii: 12,) that is, in the ceremonial: for not only 
have the New Moons, the great Jewish Festival s-,- 
the Sabbatic Years, &c. y passed away;, but even all 
connected with the ceremonial law, even the set 
time of the Jewish Sabbath; not, however, its sacred 
observance.. This is still an important religious du- 
ty. This change is from the sevtnth to the Ji7-st day 
of the week. (Math, xiir 8; Acts xx: 7; Rev. i: 10.) 
So thorough, and minute, even, however, has been 
the change of all externals, that, although once al- 
lowed and practised, (Fs. cxxxiii: 2; 2 Sam. xiv: 25,) 
that it is even now a shame, and ttnscriptural for men 
to wear long hair, (1 Cor. xi: 14,) although it should 
only be left to grow on a man's chin. The eighth 

* Who can account for the observance of Circumcision on 
the Sabbath. (John vii: 22—2."): Gen. xvii: 12,) if it Lad only 
been national, and not a religious rite ? 



Chap. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. M 

day, though Baptism* comes in room of Circumcision r 
is then no longer binding.. As there is, however,, 
no precise time specified when children are to be 
baptized, circumstances and convenience are to be 
consulted, and to direct us. But as children were 
circumcised the eighth day, we should embrace the 
first opportunity to have them, recognized as stand- 
ing in covenanted relation with God, by Baptism r 
the sign or token and seal of the Covenant of Grace. 
The Gospel plan of salvation a dmits of no delay. 

Q. 11. But if Baptism comes in room of Circum- 
cision, why baptize Females ? 

A. We reply in answer as before: "The priest- 
hood being changed^" the law is also changed — all 
externals. Again, as Circumcision, as an external r 
conflicted with the nature of the subject,, and as Bap- 
tism, under the New Testament externals, does not r 
(Heb. vii: 19, 22; viii: 6) they sue personally entitled to 
Baptism, the sign or token and seal of the Covenant, 

Q. 12. When did the change of the priesthood, 
(Heb. vii: 12,) the ceremonial law, stated times of 
things— -all externals — take place? 

A. Not till after the death of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Testator of the New Covenant. Heb. 
ix: 17. "A testament is of force after men are 
dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the 
testator liveth." (Eph. iir 14—17; Col. ii: 14— 18.) 
This, then, too, is irresistible testimony, that John, 
Christ, and his disciples officiated according to ex- 
ternals, as legislated under the Old dispensation; 
and that Circumcision, as the sign or token and seal 
of the Covenant, was valid until then T andno longer. 



CHAPTER H. 



Jti RECAPITULATION OF THE COVENANT, CIRCUMCISIOW 
AND CIRCUMCISION CONNECTED WITH BAPTISM. 



SECTION I. 



A Concise View of the Nature of the Covenant of 
Circumcision. 



Q. 1. Can you give, concisely, the nature of this 
covenant? 

A. Readily:— 

1. God established it with Abraham and his seed 
after him in their generations. (Gen. xvii: 7.) 

That Abraham has now a seed, cannot be denied. 
(Gal. iii: 7, 26, &c.) 

Therefore, it is in existence yet, and must contin- 
ue to exist, as long as a vestige of Abraham's pos- 
terity is to be found. 

2. God established it with Abraham and his infant 
seed. (Gen. xvii: 7, 9.) 

Infant females were then embraced as well as in- 
fant males. 

Therefore, God established it with his infant fe- 
males as well as with his infant males. 

3. "An ordinance which God himself appointed 
in his church, and which he never revoked, we have 
no right to reject. 

But God did confessedly appoint infant member- 
ship in his church, and did never revoke it. 
Therefore, we have no right to reject it." 

4. God established his covenant with Abraham 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 5BI 

and his seed, "to be a God 19 to them "in their gen- 
erations." (Gen.xvii: 7.) 

It is certain he cannot become a God to sinful 
man, unless through the blessed Redeemer. (Rom.. 
xv: 8, &c.) 

Therefore, God established it with Abraham andi 
his seed, (Gal. iv: 28,) ( to be a God' unto them 'in- 
their generations,' through the Lord Jesus Christy 
(Gal. iv: 7.) 

5. One of the grand points, then, of the stipula- 
tions of this Covenant, was the promise of the Savior,. 
[Ho be a God,' &c; Gen. xvii: 7; Phil, iii: 3.] 

St. Paul declares that those, then, who had that 
promise, (Gen. xii: 2 — 4,) had the 'gospel preached.* 
(Gal. iii: 8.) 

Therefore, Abraham and all his seed had, and yet 
have [the pious] the gospel preached. 

6. This covenant, then, embraced a gospel prom- 
ise, and preached gospel facts. (Acts viii: 25.) 

A covenant, embracing a gospel promise, and 
preaching gospel fads-, must be a gospel covenant,. 

Therefore, it was then r &n& it is yet, The Gospel 
Covenant. 

Q. 2 . What testimony is thus afforded for Infant 
Baptism ? 

A. That we have all they then had, and, even 
more, for infant recognition, under the New dispen- 
sation, than the Jews had under the Old. This is- 
natural: — 

1. The light should develope more than the dawn, 
and the substance should be more tangible than the 
shadow, 

2. It is an excellent rule to follow the dawn, un- 
til we come in contact with the perfect Gospel 



54 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part I, 

light, and to follow the shadow until we find the 
substance. 



SECTION II. 



A CONCISE VIEW OF THE NATURE OF THE SIGN OR TO- 
KEN, CIRCUMCISION. 



Q. 1. Can you delineate its nature ? 
A. Certainly: — 

1. It was a sign or token of moral fitness. 2. A 
sign or token whereby God acknowledged his sub- 
jects. 3. A sign or token of separation. 4. A sign 
or token and seal of the righteousness of faith. 5. A 
sign or token of salvation. 

Q. 2. How will you make all this appear ? 

A. Thus: 1. The stipulations of the covenant, 
of which Circumcision was the sign or token and 
seal, demanded of its subjects moral Jitness. (Gen. 
xvii: 1—3.) 

Abraham and his infant seed, as subjects, were 
•circumcised on the principles of moral Jitness. — 
[Abraham was pious, Gen- xv: 6; and his infant seed 
innocent.'] 

Therefore, it was a sign or token of moral Jitness. 

2. The stipulations of the covenant, of which Cir- 
cumcision was the sign or token and seal, was the 
sign or token of the covenanted relation existing 
between God and his people. [Gen. xvii: 7, 8, 11. 
Had females none?] 

Abraham and his infant seed were known to stand 
in covenanted relation with God., by circumcision. 
(Gen. xvii: 14.) 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. £§ 

Therefore, circumcision was a sign or token where- 
by God acknowledged his subjects. 

3. The stipulations of the covenant, of which Cir- 
cumcision was the sign or token and seal, required 
God's subjects to be separated from the heathen; 
(Gen. xv: 7; xvii: 8;) and set apart for his service. — 

[Gen. xvii: 1; Rom. ix: 4. Were females not?~\ 
Abraham and his seed — all Israel— • were known 

as a distinct People by cirunmcision. 

Therefore, circumcision was a sign or token of 

separation. 

4. The stipulations of the covenant, of which Cir- 
cumcision was the sign or token and seal, required 
the people of God to exercise faith in the promises of 
God; (Gen. xvii: 7; "To be a God unto thee, and 
thy seed after thee;" i. e. through Christ.) 

Abraham and his adult seed [the pious] believed 
in the stipulations of the covenant, which was based 
upon promises, of which Cireumeision was the sign 
or token and seal. (Gen. xiL* 2; xlix: 10; John iv: 25. 

Therefore, Circumcision was the sign or token and 
seal of the righteousness of faith. (Rom. iv: 11.) 

5. The stipulations of the covenant, of which Cir- 
cumcision was the sign or token and seal, assured [on 
certain conditions] salvation or deliverance. (Gen. 
xvii: 1—3, 7, 8.) 

Abraham and all his seed were placed under these 
stipulations by circumcision* (Gen. xvii: 11,14; Gal. 
v: 3.) 

Therefore., Circumcision was a sign or token of 
salvation or deliverance, 



66 SECTION I If. P'arfV.-- 



THE COVENANT, CIRCUMCISION, ETC., FURTHER 
EXAMINED. 



Q. What additional light, on the nature of the' 
covenant, its sign or token and seal, does a further 
examination afford ? 

A. This: 

1. "Circumcision 9 * was to Abraham " a seal of the 
righteousness of faith which he had" (Gen. xii: 2 — 4) 
in Christ j "yet being uncircumcised." (Rom. iv: 
11.) 

Circumcision was the sign or token of the Coven- 
ant of Circumcision. (Gen. xvii: 11.) 

Therefore, the Covenant of Circumcision embraced 
the promise of the Messiah, 

2. Circumcision was the sign or token and seal of 
the Covenant. (Gen. ivii: 11.) 

It was established with his infant females, as well 
as with his infant males! (Gen. xvii: 7, 9.) 

Therefore, Circumcision, the sign or token and 
seal of the males, was theirs as well as the males'. 
Or thus? 

God established his covenant with Abraham and 
bis infant seed. (Gen. xvii: 7, 9.) 

The circumcision of the males was the sign or to- 
ken of the Covenant. (Gen. xvii: 11.) 

Therefore, as his infant females were embraced, 
(Gen. xvii: 7, 9,) Circumcision, the sign or token and 
seal of the Covenant, was theirs as well as the males'. 
Hence, they were as really and as substantially cir- 
cumcised as the males; although they did not wear 
the badge of the promise. (Gen. xvii: 7.) 

3. Circumcision was the sign or token otrccogni- 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 57 

Hon of membership in the Church, under the Old 
dispensation. 

Baptism is 'the sign or token of recognition of 
membership in the Church, under the New dispen- 
sation. 

Therefore, Baptism comes instead or room of 
Circumcision. Again — 

4. Circumcision, the sign or token or shadow of 
recognition, under the Old dispensation, embraced, 
by its use, infants. 

Baptism, the sign or token or substance of recog- 
nition, under the New, must necessarily embrace, 
by its use, them also. 

Therefore, Baptism not only comes instead or 
room of Circumcision, but embraces infants, also. 

5. Circumcision, the sign or token under the Old 
dispensation, was the shadow and dawn of Gospel 
times. 

It was a sign or token by which infants were re- 
cognized as members of the Church. 

Therefore, Baptism, the sign or token, under the 
New dispensation, is the sign or token — the sub' 
stance — the full light of gospel glory — by which 
they must now be recognized. 



SECTION IV. 



A CONCISE VIEW OF CIRCUMCISION, CONNECTED 
WITH BAPTISM. 



Q. 1. How will you give the import of this sub- 
ject? 

A. Thus: 

[c2] 



II CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Pari I. 

1. Baptism comes in room of Circumcision. 
Circumcision was once the sign or token and seal 

of the Covenant* 

Therefore, Baptism is now the sign or token and 
seal of the Covenant. 

2. Baptism comes in room of Circumcision. 
Circumcision was once termed "The seal of the 

righteousnesss of faith." (Rom. iv: 11.) 

Therefore, Baptism is now the (( seal of the righte- 
ousness of faith." 

3. Baptism comes in room of Circumcision. 
Infants were commanded to be circumcised. 
Therefore, infants are commanded to be baptized. 

4. Baptism comes in room of Circumcision. 
Infants, upon the faith of parents, were circum- 
cised. (Gen. xxi: 4; Luke i: 59 — 64.) 

Therefore, infants, upon the faith of parents, 
must be baptized. 

5. Baptism comes in room of Circumcision. 
Whole families ' 5 upon the faith of parents, were 

circumcised. 

Therefore, whole families , upon the faith of pa- 
rents, must? [if neglect has done the mischief,] be 
baptized. 

6. Baptism, then, as the sign or token and seal of 
the covenant, which God established between Abra- 
ham and his seed after him, ( in their generations, for 
an everlasting covenant,' comes in room of Circum- 
cision. 

Parents, of the seed of Abraham, who then ne- 
glected the ciremmcision of their child, caused "that 
soul" to be «cut offfrom his people" — God declaring 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 6'0 

"he hath broken my covenant" (Gen. xvii. 14; Ex„ 
iv: 23—27.) 

Therefore j parents of the seed of Abraham, (Gal, 
iii: 7, 27,) who now neglect the baptism of their 
child, cause Hhat soup to be c cut off from his 
people' — God declaring yet* <he hath broken my 
covenant.' 

7. Baptism comes in room of Circumcision. 

The neglect, in parents, to have their children cir> 
cumcised, was a sin. 

Therefore, the neglect, in parents, to have them 
baptised now, is also a sin* 

Q. 2. What inferences may be drawn from the 
nature of the covenant made with Abraham^ its sign 
or token and seal 1 

A. These: As Baptism and Circumcision are 
signs or tokens and seals of the same stipulated 
-substance, or more or less substantially alike in na- 
ture, when scripturally examined., and spiritually 
considered, it of course follows that we have posi- 
tive testimony of what has already been stated., viz: 
that the covenant of Circumcision and the covenant 
of Baptism are one, and the self-same thing; that 
the Church now is the continuation of the Church 
then; that Infants are still memhers of the Church, 
and that the sign or token and seal, Baptism, comes 
in room of Circumcision, All this, however, will be 
of little consequence, unless we and our children be 
brought into covenanted relation with God, and into 
union and Christian fellowship with his People. — 
Hence, we see that the design of the Holy Scrip- 
tures, with all there taught as binding on man, and 
fchat is there declared to have been done for th« 



€0 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 1. 

human family, is to keep the pious and their chil- 
dren, as members of the Church of Christ, in a slate 
of moral fitness for the Kingdom of Heaven; to bring 
others down from their pride, deceit and wicked- 
ness, to a spiritual level with little children, (Math, 
xviii: 3,) and to make morally Jit for Heaven, even aa 
many of the world as may be made disposed, through 
truth, and the effects and influence of the Holy 
Spirit, to comply with the offered mercies of God. 



CHAPTER IIL 



THE EAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST DOES NOT SUPER- 
SEDE WATER BAPTISM. 



Q. 1. What do we learn from the cases of Water 
Baptism at Cornelius' house ? (Acts x: 44, &c.) 

A. Not only that Water Baptism is not the pro- 
cess by which we are converted, but that Spiritual 
Baptism does not supersede Water Baptism. Had 
it been otherwise, Christ would never have institu- 
ted it, (Math, xxviii: 19, &c.,) and St. Peter com- 
plied, on that occasion, with the apostolic commis- 
sion with which (Math, xxviii: 19, &c; Acts x: 47, 
&c.,) he had been invested. 

Q. 2. What, then, do you make of John's lan- 
guage, (John iii: 30,) "He [Christ] must increase, 
but I [John] must decrease ? " 

A. Not that Water Baptism should cease, but his 
popularity, his mission, his ministry, as harbinger of 
the Lord Jesus Christ. (John iii: 26; iv: 1 — 3; Math, 
xiv: 10.) That this view is correct, is evident, from the 
examples, and the uniform practice of the Apostles, 



Chap. 3. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 61 

(Acts ii: 21; x: 48,) after the outpouring of the Holy 
Spirit, in continuing the use of this ordinance. 

Q. 3. But is it not said, even after the miraculous 
manifestation of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. i: 17) "Christ 
sent me, not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel ? " 

A. This passage does not conflict with the use of 
Water Baptism. St. Paul was in the habit of bap- 
tizing [v. 14, 16,] as well as preaching. That a 
commissioned (Acts ix: 15, 20; 1 Cor. xi: 23) Apos- 
tle intended to convey the idea that Water Baptism 
was done away, when he says, 'Christ sent me not 
to baptize, but to preach the gospel,' who had al- 
ready baptized en the authority of that commission, 
is absurd. But we find the facts to be these: In this 
chapter an account of divisions and contentions is 
given. Some would be "ofPaul," others "of Apol- 
los," &c. This was a grief to the Apostle. Hence 
he puts the queries, "Is Christ divided ? Was Paul 
crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name 
of Paul ? I thank God that I baptized none of you" 
contentious creatures, none "but Crispus," &c. — 
Now why these expressions ? Does he not give the 
answer ? "Lest any should say that I had baptized in 
mine oivn name, — -for," continues he, 'Christ sent 
me not to baptize;' that is, merely, andinmy name, 
thus to raise a faction for myself; 'but to preach the 
gospel' — to declare its principles, by orally preach- 
ing, and symbolically setting it forth by Baptism; oth- 
erwise, it is not gospel; they must both go together, 
and both be observed in practice. By the expression 
*to preach the gospel,' [eccaggelizethai,] he would 
be understood, that he was sent 'to preach the gos- 
pel' with a design and hope of a better effect: for it 



m CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Pari *, 

has not proved to be a gospel effect f [as he then found 
things^] because of the detestible notion, and sinful 
wish, to be named after those who had baptized 
them; nor } that this state of things was in accordance 
with the grand design of the apostolic commission* 
(Math, xxviii: 19, &c.) 

Q. 4. What other authority can be advanced to 
set this subject forever at rest ? 

A. Gospel authority, or facts connected with and 
embraced in the apostolic commission. 
, 1. To baptize the nations (Math, xxviii: 19, &c.) 
was as much a duty [then,, and why not now?] as to 
teach them. That they must yet be taught, none can 
deny; hence, they must also be baptized. If it is not 
necessary to observe the latter, then it is also unne- 
cessary to observe the former. What then the use of 
the Scriptures? If you throw one thing away, you 
may throw all away!! 2. The nations were to be 
taught all things whatsoever the Lord Jesus had 
commanded the Apostles. He commanded them, as 
the called and commissioned, by particularly speci- 
fying, among all other things, to baptize the nations . 
They are, as yet, neither all taught nor baptized} 
nor do they yet all observe all things whatsoever he 
has commanded them. Therefore these duties, and 
Baptism among the rest, are yet devolving on the 
called and commissioned to carry them out, and see 
that they be observed. 3. The blessed Savior prom* 
ised to be with such, 'even to the end of the world,' 
The end has not yet come; hence these duties are 
all to continue binding, and all to be observed by the 
nations, as in full force and virtu* , until the end of 
time. 



PART II— THE SUBJECTS. 



CHAPTER I. 



THEIR SPECIFICATION. 



Q. Who are proper subjects for Christian Bap^ 
tism? 

A. 1. The convicted; provided they are willing 
to forsake their evil and sinful ways, come under the 
influence of truth, and continue under the work of 
the Holy Spirit until their wicked hearts are convert- 
ed to God. 

2. The converted* 

3. The innocent children, or all such as have not 
yet arrived to the years of accountability, of either 
the convicted or converted, if they themselves are 
baptized, and all such other children that either 
may adopt, and over whom they shall act as guar- 
dians. 



CHAPTER II. 



THEIR SCRIPTURAL IDENTITY, 



SECTION I. 



The Awakened, 



Q. 1. How will you prove that the convicted are 
scriptural subjects for Christian Baptism? 

A. From the cases found in Acts ilS 37—42, 
where it is said, "They were pricked in their hearts, 
and said — Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" 

63 



64 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

The reply was, "Repent and be baptized, every one 
of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the re- 
mission of sins." Then it is stated, "They — were 
baptized: and the same day there were added unto 
them about three thousand souls." Here, then, 
was conviction, deep conviction — 'they were prick- 
ed in their hearts;' and they manifested a willing- 
ness to forsake sin, and come under truth; hence 
the inquiry, c IV hat shall we do? ' They were 
unconverted; therefore the reply, 'Repent and be 
baptized — for the remission of your sins.' Then 
we are informed, 'They — were baptized.' We 
have then Apostolic practice to warrant such as fit 
subjects for Christian baptism. 

Q. 2. But what do you understand by the ex- 
pression, 'for the remission of sins ? ' 

A. Not what some do. 1. Because children 
cannot be baptized 'for the remission of sins;' that 
therefore they are not entitled to baptism. This er- 
roneous opinion does not only conflict with many 
important passages and facts contained in the Word 
of God, but actually destroys the validity of the 
Gospel Covenant, made with Abraham and his seed 
after him. It is a stroke struck at the entire plan 
of Salvation. It is calculated to root it up, root and 
branch. 2. Nor, that baptism is conversion. Were 
this so, how then was that host of worthies convert- 
ed before Baptism was instituted ? Whence, then, 
the remission of their sins ? How were Abraham, 
Isaac, Jacob, and thousands under the Old dispen- 
sation, then, sanctified in heart? 3. Nor, that we 
are sure of the forgiveness of sins under the admin- 
istration of baptism, but that we, as adults, under 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 65 

conviction, be baptized, with the confident hope 
and expectation of obtaining forgiveness, through 
the merits of the shed blood (1 John i: 7) of our 
blessed Redeemer. 4. Once more — "the expression, 
'for the remission of sins,' can safely, and therefore 
correctly be read, "unto, or in hope of the remission 
of sins." 

Q. 3. Can you give any other scriptural speci- 
men of baptism having been administered to subjects 
under conviction? 

A. St. Paul's case is a fair specimen* He was 
three days under conviction. (Acts ix: 9.) To 
him Ananias was sent, who reproved him for de- 
lay, and prompted him to duty. "Why tarriest 
thou?" said he, "arise and be baptized, and wash 
away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 
(Acts xxii: 16.) 

Q. 4. Did not, however, water, in this case, wash 
away sin? 

A. It is said, 1 John i: 7, "The blood of Jesus 
Christ his son, cleans eth us from all sin." Conse- 
quently, if his 'blood cleanseth us from all sin,' how 
can water, in this rite, accomplish any thing of the 
kind ? as there is then nothing left for water to take 
away; therefore, the water was nothing more than 
emblematic of the purifying effects of the blood of the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and did nothing, nor can it 
ever, in cleansing the soul from sin. 

Q. 5. But how delay, on the part of St. Paul, 
when informed, Acts xxvi: 19, that he said, "Where- 
upon, king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto 
the heavenly vision^" and again, Actsix: 20, "And 



66 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Pari 2. 

straightway," it is stated, "he preached Christ in 
the synagogues? " 

A. These passages have nothing to do with St. 
Paul's conversion, but refer to his duties in the minis- 
try: hence, cannot conflict with his baptismal ne- 
glect. 

Q. 6. But is not this, however, a dangerous way 
in receiving such as church members ? 

A. Not more so than that of Simon the Sorcerer. 
(Acts viii: 9 — 25.) Moreover if Baptism be a means, 
and, all know, the proper use of the means of grace 
is the only means we can use in going to Christ, it is 
then, of course, more dangerous to neglect than to 
use them. Hence, it is right — it is scriptural — thus 
to receive such as church members. 



SECTION II. 



THE CONVERTED. 



Q. 1. Can you give any scriptural specimen of 
the converted having been baptized ? 

A. The cases at Cornelius' house, Acts x: 47, 
&c>, afford an example. That they were converted 
is certain, from the descent of the Holy Ghost: 
hence, we read nothing about repentance, the re- 
mission of sins, &c, but are informed that St. Peter 
"commanded them to be baptized in the name of the 
Lord." 

Q. 2. But why did St. Peter make the descen t 
of the Holy Ghost upon the Gentiles an argument 
for Water Baptism ? 

A. Not that others should not be baptized vriih 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 67 

neater, unless first baptized with the Holy Ghost. The 
examples and practice of the Apostles, of an oppo- 
site character, are too numerous to convey any such 
idea. (Acts ii: 37 — 39; xix: 5 — 7.) But it was to 
St. Peter such a striking proof of conversion, of 
moral fitness for the kingdom of Heaven — God hav- 
ing so signally manifested it by the descent — that, al- 
though Gentile converts, the Apostle at once refer- 
red to it, as testimony for Water Baptism, in almost 
accents of acclamation: who ^ c can — forbid Water 
that these should not be baptized who have received 
the Holy Ghost as well as we?"! Or, in other 
words, St. Peter saw that if God had thus acknowl- 
edged them, although Gentiles, and that if they had 
been already spiritually adopted into the family of 
God and "household of faith," that it was certain 
that he, as an Apostle, should also acknowledge 
them, by Water Baptism, as members of the visible 
Church of God, and that they were thus entitled to 
the sign or token and seal of the righteousness of 
their faith. 

Q. 3. What the reason that those at Cornelius' 
house were converted before, and Saul after the ad- 
ministration of Water Baptism? 

A. Among other reasons, the one a Jew, a per- 
secutor, and hence well acquainted with the doc- 
trines of Christ, and yet unwilling', even after hia 
conviction, to comply with the rite of acknowledg- 
ing his Lord and Master by the use of this ordi- 
nance; whilst this was not the case with those at 
Cornelius' house. Though Gentiles, they had done 
all they had known, without any hesitancy, to com- 
plj with what they were then taught, whilst the 



68 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Pari ft 

other was interrogated upon his neglect, (Acts xxii:* 
1'6'j,) *Why tarriest thou V and then urged to duty, 
'A-ris«y and be baptized.' Therefore the difference 
^— one' converted before, and the other after the ad- 
ministration of baptism. Moreover, it is certain, 
that roo» sinner can be converted, or Christian re- 
main steadfast, under the neglect of any known 
duty, because he then admires and loves the neglect, 
his own will r the exercise and gratification of his 
own depraved nature, more than God, and more 
than the will of his Heavenly Father. Thus an idol 
is either kept or reared up in his heart. 

Q. 4. Which of these cases was initiatory ? 

A. Those at Cornelius' house. They were Gen- 
tiles — born out of the Church — but who were, on 
this occasion, graffed, (Rom. xi: 1, &c.,) by conver- 
sion and baptism, (John iii: 5,) as branches of the 
"wild olive tree," [of the heathen world, v. 17,] 
among them, [the believing Jews, that were not 
"broken off,"] and were thus made "partakers [with 
the believing Jews] of the root and fatness of the 
olive tree," [the Jewish Church, thence called the 
Christian;] whilst Saul was born in the Church, was 
circumcised, and stood, externally, all his life, in 
covenanted relation with God, until unchurched on 
the day of Pentecost, by circumcision being then 
rendered a non-validity. 

Q. 5. Were all the Jews then, on the day of 
Pentecost, unchurched? 

A. All, externally; because, without a sign or 
token and seal of the covenant, as the Jews- to this 
day. Those, only, that had faith, and hence not 
spiritually cut off, by compliance with the use of 



{Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 69 

Water Baptism, exchanged the latter sign or token 
and seal for the former, and thus were externally 
reinstated. 

Q. 6. To what is Saul's case conclusive tes- 
timony ? 

A. This:— -that Baptism was only initiatory to 
those Jews, who became believers, that had had Cir- 
cumcision neglected, or it could not have been said 
of a part of the natural branches, the unbelieving, 
and yet circumcised, Rom. xi: 20 — 22, that they 
^were "broken off by unbelief." 



SECTION III. 



LITTLE CHILDREN, INFANTS.. 



Q. 1. Can you find proof for Infant Baptism? 

A. Without any difficulty. 

Q. 2. What benefit is Baptism to unconscious 
babes ? 

A. We reply interrogatively. Did Abraham ex- 
press himself thus when required to circumcise in- 
fants? Had he not a sounder head and better heart 
than to use such language ? 

Q. 3. But still, hpw believe Infant Baptism ? 

A. Because we cannot disbelieve what the de- 
mons pretend not to believe. Other things there 
are, also, that they pretend not to believe, which 
are still right to practice. 

Q. 4. But if little children are to be baptized, 
why did not Christ baptize those (Mark x: 13 — 17; 
Luke xviii: 15 — -13} brought to him? 



70 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3* 

A. He did baptize them, — not, however,, with 
water, but with the Holy Spirit. The facts of John'* 
ease is testimony. If he, in an age of wonders,, 
could so early, in point of existence^be "Jilled (Luke 
i: 13—16, 44) with the Holy Ghost," then they could 
also be baptized with the Holy Spirit,, by the laying 
on of the hands of the Savior. Was not this the 
means used by the Apostles, (Acts viik 17; xix; 6,) 
by which, on some occasions, Christ baptized ? He 
then, by this act y as effectually acknowledged those 
little children his, as those Jews [the disciples, Acts 
ii: 1 — 5,] and Gentiles (Acts x: 44, &c.) when he 
baptized them with the Holy Spirit. Can we not,, 
then, with equal propriety y say of little children as 
St. Peter said (Acts ; x: 47) of those adults: "Who can 
forbid water that they should not be baptized, that 
have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ?" or 
will any dare to say, He blessed them, but they re- 
ceived no blessing ? 

Q. 5. Why, then, did not those children "speak 
with other tongues?" (Acts ii: 4.) 

A. Why did not the Spirit then give John similar 
utterance? (Luke i: 13 — 16.) The truth of the 
matter, however, is this: the time had not yet arrived 
when those gifts were to be bestowed, nor when 
men were to be qualified to "preach among the Gen- 
tiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;" (Eph. ii i r S:) 
neither would God endow such as were deficient :n 
natural ability and influence. 

Q. 6. Why, however, did Christ not baptize them 
with water, as the Apostles did those adults after 
they were baptized with the Holy Ghost? (Acts x: 
4S.) 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 71 

A. Christ never came to baptize with Water, 
(Luke iii: 16,) and the apostolic commission had not 
yet been given; (Math, xxviii: 19, &c.;) therefore he 
did not baptize them with it. 

Q. 7. How is it, then, that it is said, "Jesus 
made and baptized more disciples than John?" 
(John iv: 1 — 3.) 

A. This passage does not teach that Christ really 
baptized with wa#r, [v. 2,] only that it was admin- 
istered by the Apostles under the direction and su- 
pervision of the Savior. 

Q. 8. How does it come that adults, and not lit- 
tle children, were baptized with water, previous to 
the institution of the apostolic commission ? 

A. All the baptisms previous to those on the day 
of Pentecost, were administered as preparatory to 
the mission of the Messiah. As, however, a pre- 
paration of heart in children was not necessary, be- 
cause morally Jit, and circumcised, circumcision yet 
valid, and they in the kingdom, as the Savior him- 
self informs us, by saying of little children, then 
brought, "Of such is the kingdom of Heaven;" 
therefore they were not baptized with water before 
the day of Pentecost* 

Q. 9. But why, then, the baptism of pious adults, 
previously to the institution of the apostolic com- 
mission ? 

A. As they were capable of being prepared, by 
the repentance of their sins of imperfection, (Mai. 
iii: 1 — 5; Isa. xl: 1 — 12; Math, iii: 2; Mark i: 1 — 5,) 
and by faith in the Messiah, as then verbally, (John 
i: 29,) and by water baptism, [v. 31,] designated, as 
then present and in their midst, they naturally came 



72 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Tart 2. 

under John's ministry, whilst little children did not: 
hence the former were baptized, and the latter not. 



SECTION IV. 



MORAL FITNESS IK CHILDREN, ETC. — TESTIMONY FOR 
INFANT BAPTISM. 



Q. 1. What argument for Infant Baptism is de- 
rived from a comparison between converted adults 
and little children ? 

A. This: Converted adults and little children 
are, and always were, on a spiritual level, alike, in 
in a state of moral fitness for heaven. (Math, xviii: 
S; Mark x: 14.) Children are then God's subjects; 
God, by the instrumentality of St. Peter, (Acts x: 47) 
&c.) acknowledged his subjects by baptism; therefore 
innocent children, all such as have not arrived to 
moral accountability, must be baptized. 

Q. 2. But is there not a great difference between 
a believing, converted adult, and an infant ? 

A. None, as far as a state of moral fitness is 
concerned, for the kingdom of Heaven. There 
is, however, in grace, and in degree of moral 
perfection. Were this not the case, there would be 
no growth in grace, nor advancement in a divine life. 
This difference, however, is found in adults, even 
shortly after conversion ; yet does not, nor can it 
scripturally deprive them from being acknowledged 
by baptism, as God's subjects; nor can it little chil- 
dren. 

Q. 3. But was there not a vast difference between 
those at Cornelius' house and infants? They were 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 73 

subjects offaith, believers; whilst infants are no suck 
subjects, cannot believe. 

A. That difference that existed upon the princi- 
ples of faith, found and exercised by them as adults, 
and which is not found in infants, cannot possibly 
interfere with the rite of Infant Baptism, upon the 
grounds of moral fitness, because moral fitness* 
based upon conversion, actually requires faith of 
adults, in order that they may be rendered morally 
Jit. and thus continued and kept in this state; for, as 
soon as they scripturally cease to believe.) their moral 
fitness is rendered less perfect than that of infants; 
because they then sin, and are held morally guilty, 
which is not the case with innocent children. — • 
(2 Cor. i: 24; Rom. xi: 20—22; Heb. xi: 6.) Infants, 
then, are more perfect scriptural subjects for Bap- 
tism than adults. 

Q. 4. Is it not, however f faith in the subject, al- 
though moral fitness be less perfect in a child, that 
constitutes the validity of the ordinance, and thus 
little children still excluded ? 

A. To suppose that God should look more to 
faith, the mere act of the creature, than to the state 
of grace of the soul, moral fitness, the result of the 
act of Deity, brought about through the atonement 
of Christ, and the mercies of God, is absurd and un- 
scriptural. 

Q. 5. Is not, however, faith' always demanded 
of subjects, as a qualification for water baptism?* 

A. Only of adults. Its design is either to keep 
them in the kingdom of God, or to bring them back. 

* Is faith for children and others, through the use of 
means, of no effect ? See Math, xv: 21—29; viii: 5— 14. 

Cp3 



74 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part % 

again (Math, xviii: 3) to their forfeited innocency, or 
state of heart, for the kingdom of Heaven, in which 
they were once morally and spiritually found, as littl e 
children. (Mark x: 14.) It is owing to this spiritual 
level with little children, this moral fitness, to which 
sinners are brought by conversion, that they are 
then termed "babes in Christ, (1 Cor. iii: 1; Heb. 
v: 13,) Utile children." (Eph. v: 1; John i: 12, 13.) 

Q. 6. But does not the administration of this 
ordinance, in every instance, require aith? 

A. Certainly; either in the subject or sponsors, 
as the case may be. There can be, in an adult, no 
moral Jitness or acceptableness of heart in the sight 
of God, in any religious service, without it. (Heb. 
xi: 6.) 

Q. 7. In what passage is all this forcibly set 
forth and clearly taught ? 

A. In Mark xvi: 15 — 17: "Go ye into all the 
world, and preach the gospel to every creature; he 
that believeth" [what? — the gospel and all it re- 
quireth; who will commence the work and live ac- 
cordingly, will thus, through truth and the influence 
of the Holy Spirit, become morally fit, and be 
brought on a spiritual level with a little child, for 
the kingdom of Heaven,] "and is baptized," [i. e. 
acknowledged as a subject of the kingdom of God ; 
how? — according to the nature of the ordinance and 
mode of administration,] "shall be saved." 

Q. 8. Can you, however, undeniably prove, that 
the apostolic commission does not exclude little 
children for want of faith ? 

A. Readily. We have seen that the object of 
the apostolic commission was, that the apostles, as 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 75 

i nstruments in the hands of God, were to qualify per- 
sons, by the instrumentality of the gospel,- for the 
kingdom of Heaven; that is, they were to labor, in 
order to bring them down on a level with little chil- 
dren. It has also been shown, that it requiredyai//t 
in an adult to arrive at this state; faith, to be con- 
tinued and kept on a spiritual level with an innocent 
child; and that adults, althoughyaiM be necessary, 
are not baptized upon the principles of faith, but 
upon the principles of moral fitness, in Christ. How 
then was it possible for the Apostles to have passed 
by little immortals , the children of believing parents, 
such as were in a state of moral fitness, and thus 
spiritually in the kingdom, and not baptize them ?•— 
How could they do this, and neglect their commis- 
sioned duties ? As readily might St. Peter have 
passed by all those adults at Cornelius' house, and 
not have baptized them. Hence, instead of the 
apostolic commission excluding such little children 
for want of faith, it actually embraces them as sub- 
jects; not ruined by sin, but ready and at hand for 
water baptism. 

Q. 9. Is the evidence of moral fitness, in favor 
of little children, for Christian Baptism, as great as 
that of the Gentiles at Cornelius' house ? 

A. Not only "as great," and of as much moment 
and importance, but even greater. They were the 
only ones verbally acknowledged by Christ as his, 
(Mark x: 14,) held up by him as a pattern of what 
we must be, (Math, xviii: 3,) and the first among all 
others, that were spiritually baptized by the Lord 
Jesus. (Markx. 16.) 



fi CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Pari 2. 

Q. 10. Are not, however, children in the king- 
dom, or church, without being baptized ? 

A. They are, provided they are born after the 
parent or parents stood in covenanted relation with 
God; that is, after one or the other, or both, had en- 
tered externally, either under conviction or conver- 
sion, by Christian Baptism, into the kingdom or 
church. But this is not scripturally sufficient. — - 
They must be acknowledged as members in the vis- 
ible church of Christ, by the rite of water baptism, 
This is evident, from the fact, that if it is scripture, 
that infant children should not be baptized, because 
born in the church, then it follows, that infant adults 
[the converted] should also not be baptized, because 
converted previously to being baptized, and hence in 
the church. This is not apostolic practice; (Acts x: 
44, &c.;) therefore unscriptural. This is then again 
argument that cannot be refuted, that infants must be 
baptizedi 

Q. 11. But infants are not saved by the gospel ; 
why, then, extend to them a gospel ordinance ? 

A. Neither are converted adults. But at death, 
the depraved nature of both, because of Christ's suf- 
fering and death, through the overriding power and 
sanctifying effects of the Holy Ghost, dies with the 
body, and the soul is thus rendered congenial to the 
holy and happy spirits in Heaven. The Word of 
God, and all there taught, is only designed as means, 
under the work of the Holy Spirit, to bring the sin- 
ner down on a spiritual level with a little child; to 
keep innocent children, from infancy to old age, and 
him in a state of grace. 

Q. 12. What! is it possible for a human being 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 77 

to live from infancy to old age, in an uninterrupted 
state of moral fitness for Heaven? 

A. It is just as possible as that a converted adult 
should be able to live qualified for Heaven; therefore 
the duty of parents. (Eph. vi: 4.) Every child per- 
mitted to live, arrives to a period of life, when it is 
first about becoming accountable, and another, when 
it is fully so. During this time, parents are partic- 
ularly required to enforce instructions. (Prov. xxii: 
6.) With due regard on the side ot both parent and 
child, the child will experience between good and evil 
a struggle like that of the converted: grace having* 
the victory. Thus it is possible to live and contin- 
ue, during this time, morally fit for Heaven. When 
this period will have arrived, if faithful, it will be a 
fall adult Christian. This is obvious. God will 
have no man, at anytime of life, to serve Satan: less 
to hazard necessarily, his salvation.; which, were 
this not a fact, would otherwise be the case. When 
such are to be baptized "for the remission of sins," 
and such as St. Peter baptized at Cornelius' house, 
we have not yet been able to learn from the Holy 
Scriptures. Perhaps, as some would have it, they 
ought to live and die as little children, without be- 
ing baptized!! 

Q. 13. Wiiat, however, becomes of little chil- 
dren that die in a state of innocency, without being 
baptized ? 

A. They are all saved in Heaven, and equally as 
happy as those that were baptized. This must be 
the case. Were it not, God, through the compli- 
ance, or non-compliance of sponsors and others, by 
the institution ol this rite, would have put their salva- 



7S CPIRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

Hon or eternal rain in the hands of men. It would 
then be thus: baptize your children, and they shall 
live; neglect this duty and they shall die. The 
same, under almost similar circumstances, might be 
said of adults. The wisdom and mercy of God, 
however, is more perfect than this, that he should 
suffer a mere external, however useful as a means, 
to detract from the efficacy of the atonement of 
Christ. 

Q. 14. But, after all, why the necessity that this 
sign or token and seal, Baptism, should be extended 
to little children, when we knoiv and are sure they 
will be saved ? 

A. Why then the necessity that it should have 
been extended to those at Cornelius' house ? Were 
they not converted? Were they not on a spiritual 
level with little children? Had they then died, 
would they not have gone to Heaven ? Is it 
not also certain, that it could not possibly have had 
so great an effect as to have supported them in their 
trials, less to have kept them in a state of grace; 
though miraculously endowed with the Holy Ghost? 
And were they not baptized ? and, if so, why not 
baptize infants — little children? 

Q. 15. What then the benefit of water baptism ? 

A. Solemnly to impress the mind of either the 
subject or sponsors with those fundamental princi- 
ples, wrought out by God, through Christ, for the 
salvation of the soul, and which are portrayed by 
the administration of water baptism. It is also, as 
the case may be, either a means by which our chil- 
dren are acknowledged as having been born in y 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 79 

or we and our children having been taken into the 
visible Church of Christ. 

Q. 16. What benefit, then, to children, that are 
evidently ignorant of all connected with the admin- 
istration of this ordinance ? 

A. We might here ask, What benefit, then, the 
laying on of the hands of Christ, on the infants, little 
children, that were brought to him? (Lukexviii: 
15— 18; Math, xix: 13—16.) W T ere they not ''evi- 
dently ignorant" of the act? Was there no benefit 
derived ? Moreover, as soon as they are capable of 
moral action, the sponsors, and the entire Church, 
as guardians, are bound to see to their religious ed- 
ucation; (Eph. vi: 4; Prov. xxii: 6; 1 Thes. v: 14;) to 
watch over them as members of the Church; (John 
xxi: 15; Mark x: 14;) and finally, at a proper age, to 
insist on them to seek the proper qualifications, 
which may enable them to "confirm and ratify," by 
a public profession, their baptismal obligations made 
for them by their parents or guardians. This being 
done, and they being always looked upon as a part 
of the mystical body of Christ, or as members of the 
church, will prove a more powerful means of grace, 
and solemnize the heart, even more, than the adminis- 
tration of baptism, upon the voluntary act of an adult. 

Q. 17. But might not all this be done without 
having them baptized ? 

A. It might; but not upon the solemn recognition 
as already being- members of the Church by Christian 
Baptism, in connection with other instruction thus 
given. Thus, then, we see again, that it is to them 
a means of grace; and hence entitled to the rite. 



SO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

Q. 18. But are not children thus put under moral 
obligation contrary to their choice ? 

A. Certainly. It is, however, in perfect harmony 
with good sense and scripture. No human being, 
once arrived to the years of accountability, can pos- 
sibly be happy, without living in conformity to moral 
obligation. Under the moral law, with grace in our 
hearts, and a due regard to the ceremonial, or ex- 
ternal part of the Christian religion, we are faithful 
subjects of the Church, entitled to Heaven: in viola- 
tion of it, and neglect of what the Holy Scriptures 
elsewhere require of us, we belong to the world, 
and are on the way to hell. Can any, then, on these 
grounds, object to Infant baptism ? 

Q. 19. But can you produce a passage showing 
that children are commanded to be baptized ? 

A. Tiiis, in point of fact, has already been done. 
But supposing it could be done in substance., only, 
as is the case with many other facts taught in Scrip- 
ture? For example, it is expressly and absolutely 
required, and can, on the same principles as Infant 
baptism, be made appear to be commanded that wo- 
men should commune; yet not in the form of a com- 
mand declared in so many words, bnt in substance. 
Now invalidate and reject, on these grounds, Infant 
baptism, and you must, in order to be consistent, 
ihbar your mother, wife and daughters from the 
Lord's table! May God have mercy upon poor frail, 
blind, limited, erring, sinful, lost, and ruined man! 

Q. 20. Is, however, a thing or fact thus inferred 
e 'jual to a command ? 

A. Certainly. St. Paul and Barnabas, upon th« 
authority of a quotation from Isa. xlix: 6: "I have 



Chap. 1 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 81 

set thee [fhe Savior] to be a light unto the Gentiles,'* 
&c, inferred that, if Christ be the Light, and they the 
instruments of its reflection, as the Jews (Acts xiiix 
46^-48) had rejected its elevated brilliancy) that their 
duty, v. 46, Was to "turn to the Gentiles." Hence 
they term even that inference a command, by ex- 
pressing themselves in this language, v. 47, "So hath 
the Lord commanded us." Even inferences, then, 
from the Word of God, nlust not only be taken as 
communications of instruction, but as equal to a 
command. So, when it is said, for example, Math, 
vii: 7, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye 
shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you;" 
it is a fact Inferred, not to ask, and not to seek, is a 
sin; and another, if we do not knock, it will never 
be cpened. Thus, then, we see We are bound to 
comply with what is understood, as well as with 
what is expressed* The same will thus also hold 
good in Infant Baptism. 

Q. 21. What does Mark x 4 . 16, by way of testi- 
mony, give on the subject of Christian Baptism, 
when informed that Christ took up little children 
"in his arms, put his hands upon them and blessed 
them." 

A. That if the blessed Savior embraced "little 
children," (Math, xix: 13, 14,) "young" children," 
)Mark x: 13,) "infants," (Luke XViii: 15,) that his 
Church at least should also; which, by the by, can, 
however, only be done ecclesiastically or ceremo- 
nially, by the rite of Baptism. Then, too, we may 
expect his hands of mercy to be upon them, and his 
blessings to follow them. 

Q. 22, Can any passage of scripture be produced 



181 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

which prohibits those from Christian baptism, that 
cannot Jirst be taught, and hence have no ability to 
believe? 

A. Nothing of the kind can be found. 

Q. 23. How do you confute the objection to In- 
fant baptism: "Children cannot be taught, cannot 
believe, &c, and therefore dare not be baptized? 

A. These objections are erroneously founded on 
Actsii: 3S&c, but more particularly on Mark xvi: 15 
— 17. If these texts debar children from the ordi- 
nance of baptism, because they cannot be. first taught, 
believe, repent, then the latter must also exclude them 
from Heaven — eternal Life^-for we are told "He that 
believeth not shall be damned." But "It is a dic- 
tate of common sense— -that any passage of scripture 
requiring a qualification or action of which children 
are incapable, is intended to be applied only to 
adults. Thus when the Apostle says, 'If any do not 
work, neither shall he eat,' " do any " 'infer, that as 
children cannot work, they must be starved ? When 
the Savior uttered these solemn words, 'He that be- 
lieveth not shall be damned,' does the" objector 
"say children cannot believe; therefore they must 
be damned? No; he rationally affirms, 'children 
cannot work, or believe, and yet their inabilily to 
perform these requisites must not exclude them, ei- 
ther from eating or from salvation.' And, for the 
same reason, we add, their inability to believe, forms 
no barrier to their baptism." The "absolute ina- 
bility to perform a duty exhonerates" even adults 
"from the obligation to perform it. A blind man is 
not bound to read the Scriptures," nor a deaf man 
to hear "them preached, nor an insane man to re« 



'Chap. ft. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. S$ 

pent, nor a sick man to labor, unless the absolute in- 
ability in the several cases can be remedied. God 
does not require impossibilities. On the same 
principle," then, we repeat it, "infants cannot 
be required" to be taught, believe, &c, "for 
the purpose of giving them a right to baptism and 
salvation." Again, neither is it necessary that they 
should be taught, that they should believe, &c, in 
order to be baptized, as the apostolic commission 
finds them in a state of moral fitness without all this, 
aud either already morally in, or .fit and ready for 
the kingdom of Heaven or Church, and consequently 
in a state, spiritually qualified for Christian baptism, 
without these prerequisites necessary in aduits. It 
is undeniable, it just finds little children where 
adults must be brought by the instrumentality of 
preaching, by faith exercised in the truths heard, and 
by the influence of the Holy Spirit. Amongst other 
candidates-, then, for this rite, (Acts ii: 37 — 4.2; xxii: 
j6,) the Apostles baptized such as were brought 
down on a spiritual level with little children. Actsx: 
44, &c. It is then owing to nothing else than the 
results of the grace of God, even to moral fitness, 
thus instrumentally produced, and as found in little 
children, that entitles adults to the kingdom of God, 
and hence to baptism. Little children, infants, 
(Luke xviii: 15 — IS,) then are entitled to the kingdom 
of Ged, [need we again say, though they cannot be 
taught, cannot believe?] and if any thing gives them 
this right, it is also grace. The title, then, to the 
kingdom is the same to both; and if it entitles one to 
baptism, it must necessarily the other. To practise 
exclusively adult baptism, is then at variance with 



*~4 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2, 

the fundamentals of the religion of the Son of God* 
Deny children then, if you dare, baptism, the sign or 
token, and seal of the covenant of grace! 

Q. 24. But is it not contended that "as the ex- 
pressions teach and believe, in the apostolic commis- 
sion, precede the term baptize, that therefore the 
subjects for baptism that have not the ability , first to 
be taught and to believe before they are baptized, 
must be rejected ?" 

A. "The order of words does not invariably de- 
termine the order of things. 'It is said, (Mark i: 4,) 
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preached the 
baptism of repentance.' Agreeably to this, John 
must have baptized before he preached" — but can 
any one "be so intolerably silly as 55 to believe this ? 
Again, "if things take place agreeably to the order 
of words employed in stating them, then all the an- 
tediluvian patriarchs uniformly begat their sons first, 
and afterwards their daughters; for it is written, they 
lived so many years and 'begat sons and daughters." 
(Gen. v: 4, &c.) 

Q. 25. But why baptize children, as we know not 
how wicked they may finally become ? 

A. Did the Jews, under the duty of the circum- 
cision of their children , reason thus ? Again, reason 
thus on adult baptism, and it will soon cease to ex- 
ist. Adults can also as readily become [and many 
have] as wicked as some of our baptized children. 

Q. 26. But are not the children that have been 
baptized as wicked as those that have not ? 

A. Not in every instance. Nor were it so, can 
this confute their title to the rite, or the validity of 
Infant Baptism, so it is taught in' scripture. This 



€hap. k CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 85 

objection might have also been brought against the 
rite of Circumcission. Wicked as many of the Jews 
were, we find they had wiser heads and better hearts 
than to attempt the like. We have not, however, 
•contended that an external can produce piety; only 
that it is a means necessary, by which God brings 
about happy results in the soul. The same objection 
is also applicable to adult baptism. Not all who 
have been baptized are pious, but many are as wick- 
ed as some of our wicked baptized children. 

Q. 27. What testimony, on this subject, does 
Mark x: 15 afford: " Whosoever shall not receive 
the kingdom of God, as a little child, he shall not 
enter therein ? " 

A. This: It can only receive the kingdom, 
[when born out of the church,] upon the principles 
of moral fitness, and not upon the knowledge of the 
plan of salvation, the exercise of repentance and 
faith; for it cannot comprehend; it has nothing of 
which to repent; it cannot believe. Now an adult is 
to "receive [when also born out of the church,] the 
kingdom — as" such, "as a little child;' 5 hence he 
must likewise receive it upon the principles of moral 
fitness. If one then must be baptized, the other 
must also. The title to the rite is grace, as had in 
Christ. If little children are not to be baptized, 
adults must not, dare not. They must receive the 
kingdom alike. Baptize, however, the latter, and 
exclude the former, and they do not receive it alike. 
Baptize then, both, and there is consistency. It is 
then in vain to speak of knowledge, repentance and 
faith, as qualifications for Christian baptism. These 
are only principles by which we are to judge the 



86 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part fL 

moral condition of the human heart, that we may, 
among adults, baptize none but scriptural subjects. 
We however run no risk in infant subjects, whose 
sponsors stand in covenanted relation with God-. 

Q. 28. But how can they receive the kingdom 
alike, when one receives it upon his own-, and the 
other upon the act of others ? 

A. It does not depend upon the act of either, to 
receive the kingdom alike; for the act will not scrip- 
turally entitle cither to the use of the ordinance, in- 
dependently of moral fitness. Were this not so, the 
wickedness in sponsors, and adult subjects, could 
not conflict with the use of the rite; which is, how. 
ever, the case. 

Q. 29. Might not, however, the expression, 
''Kingdom of God" mean the Church triumphant? 

A. No difference; if they do not receive the one 
upon the principles of knowledge, repentance, faith, 
and an act of their own, neither do they nor can 
they the other. (Eph. ii: 8 — 11.) 

Q. 30. What, then, is the natural ran and regu- 
lar order of things in the apostolic commission ? 

A. Mark xvi: 15—17, "Go ye into all the world 
and preach the gospel to every creature; he that be- 
lie veth and is baptized shall be saved; he that belie v- 
eth not shall be damned." The order of things is 
specific; 1. 'Preachy not to infants, but to adults; 
2. Ho every creature, ' Jew and Gentile; even to 
such as may be benefitted by hearing, and thus be 
enabled to benefit others; 3. 'the gospel f that is, all 
taught in the scriptures, and among other things in- 
fants are in a state of moral fitness, either in, or ready 
for the kingdom of Heaven; and you must be con- 



p.t. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 87 

verted, brought down on a spiritual level with them, 
made morally Jit for the kingdom; and thus become 
a subject of divine grace, and receive the kingdom 
as they. So that if they receive it upon moral 
fitness, you must; and if you are required to be bap- 
tized, they then are also; and you believing Jews, and 
your children, as your circumcision, the sign or 
token &nd seal of moral Jit ness, has, by the advent of 
Christ and the institution of Baptism, been made un- 
circumcision, must all be baptized; so that 'he 
that believeth* — not a child, but any adult — not 
a part, but all that I have done and required, even 
Irifant Baptism — 5. ( and is baptized,' he and all 
his, in token of this faith, 6. 'shall be saved* from 
the consequences of sin, and dwell with me forever 
in Heaven; 7. ( but he that believeth noV — -not a 
child, but any" adult — one that is obstinate, 8. 
'shall be damned* in hell. 



CHAPTER III. 



FIGURATIVE ADULT AND INFANT BAPTISM. 



SECTION I. 



The Vine and the Branches. John xv: 1 &c. 



Q. 1. Is not Christ figuratively termed the Vine 
and ye the Branches? 

A. Scripture tells us so, if we be Christians.— 
John xv: 5, 8. 

Q. 2. How are the Branches [Christians] united 
to the Vine 1 [Christ,] 



88 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2, 

A. By being brought down on a spiritual level 
with little children, (Math, xvrii: 3,) or into a state 
of moral fitness for the kingdom of Heaven, (Mark x: 
14,) and then by being baptized with water. This is 
the scriptural process, obviously set forth by apos- 
tolic practice. (Acts x: 44, &c.) 

Q. 3. Did you ever behold a branch attached to 
a vine without bearing tender twigs ? 

A. Not unless the branch was dead or in a state 
of decay. 

Q. 4. How are the tender twigs [children] at- 
tached to the vine ? [Christ.] 

A. By the branches [Christians] being first uni- 
ted to the vine, [Christ,] and thus a union formed 
between the branches and tender twigs, by which 
the latter are nourished by the saps [instruction and 
grace of God] flowing through the former from the 
vine to the latter. 

Q. 5. What is such a union of the vine, branches 
and tender twigs like ? 

A. Partly visible and partly invisible; also partly 
incomprehensible, yet complete in itself. 

Q. 6, How is the external process of this union 
formed ? 

A. Thus: As adults [the branches] byconver- 
sion are only invisibly united, and cannot be exter- 
nally and visibly attached to the vine, [Christ,] unless 
baptized, and as adults and infants are to receive the 
kingdom of God ^Mark x: 15, alike. Water Baptism 
must be the process by which both [the branches 
and tender twigs] are brought to form a scriptural, 
visible union, like that between the vine, branches 
and tender twigs. 



OhajL 3. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 89 

Q. 7. What then cuts off the tender twigs, [chil- 
dren] from the vine ? [Christ.] 

A. The wickedness of parents and the Church. 
>?.. Their baptism is neglected. 2. Their religious 
instruction. 

Q. 8. Is there not, then, a difference between 
the children of some parents and those of others ? 

A. Certainly; but not upon the grounds of moral 
fitness, let their views and state of heart be what 
they may. This does not effect the moral condition 
of little children, so long as they are in a state of 
innocency. As, however, little children cannot be 
externally and visibly attached to the vine [Christ] 
without the branches [sponsors] are first, the differ- 
ence is this: — the converted, with proper gospel 
views, have not only by conversion and baptism 
been united to the vine, [Christ,] but have had, by 
baptism, through their instrumentality, their chil- 
dren also united, whilst others have not. Thus then 
the one bears the tender twigs, whilst the other does 
not; which, in point of morals and scriptural visi- 
bility, constitutes a vast difference. 

Q. 9. How is Christian Baptism here repre- 
sented ? 

A. As initiatory . 

Q. 10. But how does, however, this parable sum 
up and represent the Church in general ? 

A. Very forcibly. Always one and the same. 
And, as Christ is represented by the Vine, God by 
the Husbandman, the Church by the Branches, that 
Infants, Little Children, must necessarily be repre- 
sented by the 'Tender Twigs., borne by her. Conse- 
quently., as soon as any of the Branches, under the 



90 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

Old dispensation, withered , morally , or died, spirit- 
ually, all the Twigs must hn.\efdt the effect. They 
were then left uncircumcised and aninstructed; noth- 
ing is also more certain under the New. The result 
is the same. They are then left unbaplized and un- 
taught. Just as effectually, also, as the neglect of 
Circumcision unchurched them then, so does the ne- 
glect of Baptism now. There is no getting out of 
this difficulty. 

Q. 11. How is thus Baptism here represented? 

A. As born in the Church. 



SECTION II. 



The Olive Tree. Rom. xi: 11— 15. 



Q. 1. With what does this passage furnish us ? 

A. A figure termed "The Olive Tree." (v. 17.) 

Q. 2. What do you understand by that expres_ 
sion ? 

A. That it is given to represent the Church of 
God. 

Q. 3. What do you understand by "some of the 
branches having been broken off?" (v. 17.) 

A. That a large portion of the Jewish church be- 
came totally unchurched, whilst others did not. 

Q. 4. How did this take place ? 

A. Through their wickedness, in having inter, 
nally, and in heart, rejected the Lord Jesus as the 
Messiah, and also in having externally , through the 
institution of Christian Baptism, lost the sign or to- 
ken and seal of the covenant of grace. 



Chap. 3. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 91 

Q. 5. In what sense did others not? 

A. In this: — although the pious Jews were all 
thus externally unchurched, yet they were not mor- 
ally and invisibly broken off. They no doubt, there- 
fore, must have embraced the first opportunity of 
having had themselves andchildren baptized. 

Q. 6. But how will you prove the baptism of 
their children ? 

A.. Readily. It is certain they could not have 
been broken off through unbelief, either in them- 
selves or parents, whilst informed that this in oth- 
ers done the mischief, (v. 20.) These families then, 
being all left, spiritually and internally, where they 
were, in a state ofmoral fitness, in the kingdom, and 
still apart of the olive tree, so that if any were bap- 
tized, all were; and consequently the children. — 
How could it be otherwise ? Is not Baptism a decla- 
ration of faith ? (Acts viii: 36 — 39.) Were they not 
required to exercise faith in behalf of their children? 
(Acts ii: 39.) Was not their individual adult bap- 
tism too limited to reach them ? In order, therefore, 
to cover the whole ground of their faith, had they 
not to have them baptized ? There is no getting out 
of the difficulty. Again, were they not unchuiched 
as well as their parents ? Was then the one to be 
visibly reinstated, and the other to be left in that un- 
happy dilemma: morally attached and externally bro- 
ken off? Did the full gospel glory and meridian day 
usher in nothing better in exchange for the dawn of 
gospel light, than this ? Had not parents a right to 
a sign or token and seal of the covenant of grace for 
their children then, as well as formerly? Could it 
be possible^ too, that the Apostles could pass them 



92 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

by and not baptize tbem ? Let conscience answer. 
Moreover, • would not the union with the Church, 
without baptism, in the one case, have been as good 
and perfect as in the other ? So that it is undeniable, 
if parents were baptized, their children were also. 
Once more, it was not sufficient, and hence not in 
accordance with the wisdom of the blessed Savior, 
that adults \ ii the branches"] should, upon the prin- 
yles of moral fitness itself, be continued in union 
with the Church, \_Hhe olive trees'] or Christ would 
not have instituted Christian baptism. Little chil- 
dren, ['the tender twigs,'] then, could not upon the 
same principles, any more than they, have been 
continued united to the church without baptism; 
therefore, they were baptized. 

Q. 7. But is it not said of the Gentile converts, 
[some of the branches of the wild olive tree, v. 17,] 
as a part of the church, then "grafted in among 
them," [the Jews, v. 17,] "thou standcst byfailh." 
(v. 20:) how then could the little children of the 
Jews stand without faith ? 

A. They could stand united to the church, [Hhe 
olive tree,'] with their pious parents, without faith, 
on their faith, as that, part ['the tender twigs'] of the 
part of the natural branches [their pious parents] that 
were not broken off, because of the faith of tiieir pa- 
rents, just as readily as that that part, ['the tender 
twigs'] of the part of the natural branches [their 
wicked parents] that were for want of faith broken 
off, should without faith have been broken off with 
their wicked parents, on account of their un!> 

Q. 8. With what do these facts furnish us ? 

A. That the faith of parents cither churches or 



Chap. 3. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 93 

unchurches their little children. Spiritually and in- 
visibly it cannot. Were this not so, it would effect 
their salvation. But how can this be an effect of 
their faith, ifChrirt has not extended to, and em- 
braced them in the rite of Water Baptism? Then 
it is obvious, clear, nay, even certain, that they 
must be baptized. If they then are unchurched, it 
is externally — visibly* It is owing to the want of 
the faith of parents, in their children's right to water 
baptism, that is the cause of the commission of this 
sin. 

Q. 9. In what light is Christian baptism here pre- 
sented? 

A. As having been bom in the church, 

Q. 10. But how were the Gentiles united to the 
Jewish olive tree, [the clnirch of God,] or 'graffed 
in among the Jews V [v. 18.] 

A. The adults by conversion and Christian bap- 
tism, and their little children by baptism alone. 

Q. 11. In what light is Christian baptism here 
presented ? 

A. As initiatory* 



CHAPTER IV. 



TYPICAL ADULT BAPTISM AND THE BAPTISM OF LIT- 
TLE CHILDREN, TYPJCAL OF INFANT BAPTISM, 



SECTION I. 



The Red Sea. 1 Cor. x: l,&c. 



Q. 1. What testimony does this passage furnish' 
for Infant baptism ? 

A. That which is incontrovertable. It is said, 
(v. 1,2,) that "all gut fathers were under the cloud 
—and ivere all baptized." 

Q. 2. Were, however, children among them ? 

A. Certainly. It would be absurd and foolish to 
suppose, that a nation like that of Israel, should not 
have had children among them. (Ex. x: S — 12; 
Num. xiv: 2—4, 31, 33.) 

Q. 3. But are not children excluded by the ex- 
pression, 'All our fathers?' 

A. By no means. 'Fathers' sometimes in scrip- 
ture stands for men, women and children. In Num. 
xx: 15, we are told that Ci our fathers went down in- 
to Egypt," and in Gen. xlvi: 3 — 8, it is said that that 
company consisted of men, women and children. In 
Acts xv: 5 — 10, children of eight days old are term- 
ed fathers. Again, the nature and circumstances, at 
this time of the journey of the Israelites—such as be- 
ing pursued by the Egyptians, as being apprehensive 
of more or less danger from the passage through the 
Red Sea — all go as testimony that the children were 
94 



Chap* 4. CRRISTIAN BAPTISM. 93 

not neglected, but were where their fathers were, 
under the cloud, and near their side, and on their 
arms, while in the sea. It then is certain, that all — ■ 
men, women, and even little innocent children — yes, 
of every age and size — wholefamilies—'Were baptized. 
If we, however, are not to learn, from this passage, 
these and oiherfacts connected with the ordinance of 
Christian Baptism, let any man give us the reason 
that St. Paul used the expression, 'were all baptized,' 
when he could have avoided it and could have chosen 
language that would have obviated every idea as re- 
ferring to Christian baptism. 

Q. 4. What as a whole may be learned from v. 
1—13? 

A. That St. Paul would not have us ignorant that 
the facts there related as having once taken place 
were types and shadows of gospel times and gospel 
ordinances, and that "the punishment inflicted upon 
the Jews," for the abuse of those mercies, " should 
operate as warnings to us Christians." 

Q. 5. But what do we more particularly learn 
from what is expressed in the first and second verses ? 

A. That St. Paul evidently drew a comparison 
between certain facts connected with the passage 
through the Red Sea, and the rite of Christian Bap- 
tism: teaching us that it is equally as binding on us 
to follow and obey Christ, unto whom we have been 
baptized, as it was obligatory on the Israelites, aud 
Moses, to follow the cloud which preceded their 
march, and to obey his legislation unto whom they 
were baptized. 

Q. 6. What is the meaning of the expression 
'were all baptixed unto Moses?* 



96 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, Part % 

A, This: that the Israelites were all united to 
Moses,' their temporal head, and made subject to his 
legislation, and thus brought into the covenant, 
(Heb. viii: 9,) of which Moses was the Mediator.— 
Thus, then, as they were brought to observe the Mo- 
saic precepts, so we are taught by this typical bap- 
f£swi,how we, as Christians, receiving Christian bap- 
tism, are externally united , by our baptism, to Christy 
as our Head, and made subject to his legislation, and 
thus brought into the New Covenant, (Heb, viii: 10,) 
of which Christ is the Mediator; and that we are 
equally as much, and even more, "brought under ob- 
ligation to keep the precepts of the gospel. ,r 

Q. 7. Why, however, baptized into the name of 
the one, and not into the name of the other ? 

A. Because of the superiority of character, and 
nature of offices of the one, and the inferiority of 
character and nature of offices of the other. 

Q. 8. What appears to have been the probable 
number of the Israelites that passed with Moses 
through the Red Sea ? 

A. We are told, Ex. xii: 37—39, "About six 
hundred thousand on foot that were men, [of war,] 
besides children and a mixed multitude. 55 

Q. 9. Were the children also obliged to follow 
the cloud, and obey the legislation of Moses 7 

A. As they were not left behind at the Red Sea, 
to meet with a watery grave, or to be kept in bond- 
age by the Egyptians? and as they were all baptized, 
and that, too, on the responsibility of an act of their 
parents; [their own never brought thither to the Red 
Sea,] it of course follows, that they were not only 
bound ; but their parents with them, and as- such V> 



Chap. 4. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 97 

see to them, that they, too, followed the cloud, and 
obeyed the legislation of Moses. 

Q. 10. What light is here reflected on Infant 
baptism under the New dispensation ? 

A. This: that if it was right that those children 
at the Red Sea were baptized* independently of be- 
ing taught, and of exercising faith, into the covenant , 
•of which Moses was the Mediator, and that, too b con- 
trary to their own choice; and if they, as soon as ca- 
pable of moral action, were brought under moral ob« 
ligation, then it is still just, proper, and to us a scrips 
tural proof, that our children should, upon similar 
premises, be baptized into the covenant, of which 
Christ is the Mediator; and that they also should be 
put under moral obligation to obey the legislation of 
the Son of God. 

Q. 11. What other irresistible facts are here 
taught ? 

A. That the Apostles must have uniformly bap- 
tized whole families, or St. Paul could not have re- 
ferred to the Baptisms of the Red Sea as a type of 
Christian Baptism. That this was done with this in- 
tention, is certain. The context of the chapter is 
the test in establishing this point. This, then, goes 
to elucidate the nature of household baptism. It is 
also certain, that we cannot have the type of a thing 
when that thing was never intended to exist or take 
.place; which must necessarily be the case if it does 
not refer to Christian Baptism. The type took in 
infants , families , whole households; so, then, must 
Christian Baptism, or the thing is inconsistent-— ab- 
surd. We would here again ask, if we are not to 
team these facts, why then has reference been made 

w 



98 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

to that event — these circumstances ? Why termed 
a baptism ? Let any one rationally answer if he 
can! 

Q. 12. What conclusions may be drawn from this 
sketch of the passage under consideration ? 

A. That it is the height of presumption and sin to 
object to Infant baptism, — a characteristic of ig- 
norance. It is an act ofjaith and obedience devolv- 
ing upon parents. It is a sign or taken and seat, that 
our children are no longer in Egypt, classed with 
the heathen; that we have not left them behind, 
abandoned to the merciless hands and bondage of the 
enemy, the Egyptian foe; nor at the Red Sea, to the 
overwhelming waters of God's wrath. Again, it is 
the distinguishing token of God's People, and the 
convincing evidence that we are required and will- 
ing to teach our children the legislation of the Son 
of God; the sign or token and seal that we are on our 
journey through this ivilderncss of sin, this barren 
land, to a promised Canaan; the rights, privileges 
and joys of which, we also desire our children to 
partake. 

Q. 13. How is Christian Baptism here typically 
represented ? 

A. As initiatory. 

Q. 14. What is presented, from the facts con- 
tained in this passage, as a duty? 

A. That if St. Paul taught Infant Baptism, and 
God himself officiated on this occasion, as adminis- 
trator in whole family or household baptisms, and 
that, if opposition should still arise, that it is not 
against us, our views and practice, merely, but 
against apostolic usage, and against Him, who in 






Chap. 4. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 99 

mercy devised the plan of salvation. Rebellion, 
then, against this topic, must have a fearful conse- 
quence! 

Q. 15. But if whole families, households, old and 
young, little and big, all were baptized, were not 
their cattle, household furniture and garments, also? 

A. This objection is futile. Scripture does not 
embrace any such enumerated things in the expres- 
sion, 'our father sj as it does infants, children, &c; 
nor does St. Paul say that they were baptized, as he 
does of them. A poor objection to get out of a dif- 
ficulty! The Immersionist himself, to avoid a simi- 
lar objection, would be necessitated to dip his sub- 
j ect for baptism naked, or baptize his garments or 
bathing clothes, as well as the candidate for baptism, 
and indeed a part of himself, garments and all. 

Q. 16. What does this and other objections 
teach? 

A. Nothing more than that we are not astonish- 
ed at objections against Infant baptism, as there is 
not a doctrine, fact or practice, contained in the 
Bible, that has not either been attacked, disputed, 
abused or rejected. (Gen. iii: 15.) 



SECTION II. 



Noah and the Ark. 1 Pet. iii: 20—22. 



Q. 1. Between what two particulars related in 
this passage, does St. Peter draw a comparison ? 

A. In speaking there of the Flood and Ark of 
Noah, "wherein few — souls were saved by water," 



100 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part % 

he says that it is the "like figure whereunto even 
baptism now saves us." Hence he draws a compar- 
ison between the circumstances given , and the saving 
effects connected with, and originating out of that 
memorable event, and that of Christian baptism. 

Q. 2. What were some of the circumstances 
connected with the event, and what might they be 
said to represent? 

A. These: The Ark, in being prepared, appears 
to have represented Christ, the ark of our safety, by 
assuming human nature; the Waters, the wrath of 
God, which Christ endured, and which caused his 
sufferings, death and burial; Noah's entering in, our 
entering by baptism, upon the principles of moral 
fitness, into all the interests and benefits of Christ's 
atonement for sin; the ark rising, Christ's resurrec- 
tion and our triumph; Noah being delivered from the 
Waters, our deliverance, through Christ, from the 
wrath of God and a wicked world, to become the 
inhabitants of a new and better country. 

Q. 3. What do you understand by the compari- 
son, when he says itis'/Ae like figure J* &?..? 

A. That he has thus given us ^figure of instruc- 
tion under the gospel dispensation, elucidating the 
nature of Christian baptism. Were this not the 
case, he would not have used language so express- 
ive of water baptism. 

Q. 4. How do you understand him when he in- 
forms us that baptism is Ci not the putting' away of the 
Jilth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience 
towards God?" 

A. That it is no more, in and of itself, 'the put- 
ting away the filth of the flesh' than was circunr 



Chap. 4. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 101 

cision. That neither has ever had this effect, but as 
one was a figure, requiring the rejection of 'the filth 
of the flesh,' so is the other. Hence, we, as adults, 
when baptized, and when we have thus visibly en- 
tered our Ark of Safety, should rise to newness of 
life in Christ Jesus, as Noah rose, by water, through 
the instrumentality of an ark, from a wicked world, 
to live for a new and better one to come. Hence 
we see > we must then forsake all sin, and leave, as 
it were, the ungodly world behind, to.be drowned 
by the waters of the flood, the wrath of God> 
and by whom we are never again to be spiritually 
molested, disturbed, or polluted, as was the case 
with Noah. We must also trust to our Ark, as he 
did to his, for safety, deliverance, and the enjoyments 
of Heaven, because of the waters, the wrath of God,, 
against sin. This is 'putting away the filth of the 
flesh;' not that water does it, but God through Christ,, 
on condition of our compliance and obedience; so 
that of course, our sins being forsaken, and we 
reconciled, the old man slain through grace, and 
the prospects of Heaven vivid, we shall have the 
< answer of a. good conscience towards God, by the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ.' 

Q. 5. But had Noah had little children, would he 
have left them behind, because they could not first 
be taught, believe and repent? 

A. No, never! They would not only have been 
remembered by Noah, but, we have reason to be- 
lieve, by the Lord himself, (Mark x: 14,) and thus 
saved from the flood, his wrath, by the instrumental- 
ity of the of the waters, through the use of an ark. 
Shall we then act contrary to this [figure qf'instruc- 



102 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

tionj by forgetting our little children, and not ded- 
icating them to the Lord through the ordinance of 
Christian baptism ? Shall we declare, by an act of 
non-compliance with duty, that they are safe with- 
out an ark, or an interest in the atonement of Jesus 
Christ? How do we feel, in the sight of Heaven, 
under such reflections and state of things? If they 
claim our notice; if they have elicited the attention 
of God, and if they are to be saved through Christ, 
and all this taught by this 'figure of instruction ,' the 
type is not only theirs, but the antitype, Baptism, 
theirs, also. 

Q. 6. What, then, appears to be the natural du- 
ty of parents? 

A. To declare their belief in the Word of God, 
as a correct plan of salvation, embracing their chil- 
dren, by having them baptized; to attend to the duty 
of keeping them separate from the influence of a 
wicked world and the result of sin, by means of the 
scriptures, prayer, &c.j to point them to Christ, the 
Ark of Safety, and to inform them of the interest 
they have in his atonement: of the title they have 
through him, to a heavenly and better world. Then 
let the instructions be sealed by a pious example, 
and the children comply with the instructions given, 
and the parents, we repeat it, will not only, but the 
children, also, have the 'answer of a good con- 
science towards God,' and both the brightest pros- 
pects of Heaven. 

Q. 7. But what is meant by the expression, c by 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ?' 

A. That had not Christ arisen from the dead, as 
Noah's Ark arose above the waters, that then our 



Chap. 5. CRRISTIAN BAPTISM. 103 

faith would all be in vain, and we without an Ark to 
bear us up, and to carry us over the waters of this 
vain and wicked world. We would then of necessity 
all perish, because of the waters, the wrath of God, 
(1 Cor. xv : 14—21.) 

Q. 8. What are the general facts learned from 
this passage ? 

A. That St. Peter, in order to make the 'like 
figure' full, 'whereunto even baptism doth now save 
us," teaches us, that house or household, family bap- 
tisms, was the apostolic practice, and that moral fit- 
ness does no more, independently of Christian bap- 
tism, put our children externally and visibly into the 
Ark, the Lord Jesus, than those children were that 
were destroyed by the waters, the flood, or wrath of 
God. 

Q. 9. How is Christian Baptism here typically 
represented ? 

A. As initiatory. 



CHAPTER V. 



FAMILY BAPTISMS. 



SECTION I. 



f Apostolic Commission — JVumber of Baptized Farni- 

ilits — Apostolic Kzamplc. 



Q. 1. Can you prove family baptisms from an ex- 
amination of the apostolic commission? 

A. Readily. The Savior Bays, Math, xxviii: IS, 
•All power is given unto me, in Heaven and in 



104 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

Earth: go ye, therefore, and teach [matheteusati,. 
i. e. disciple] all nations, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, &c., teaching \_didosko rites'] them 
to observe all things," &c. The apostles then, were 
sent to disciple all nations; "then men, women, and 
children." This was not possible without the com- 
mission having included all, even little children. To 
have therefore discipled only adults through preach- 
ing and baptizing, would have left the children 
externally where they were, in the world, without 
having been discipled; and as infants, little children y 
could not be discipled by being taught and baptized, 
the Apostles must have discipled them by the rite of 
baptism, only, in order to have families, nations, as 
was the case and result of their labors. (1 Pet. ii: 
9—11; Acts xv: 13—18; Isa. xl: 11; Phil, ii: 15.)— 
"Teaching [didoskontes] them," the adults, [and 
and infants, all such little baptized children, as soon 
as capable, through those adults, Kph. vi: 4,] "to ob- 
serve all things whatsoever," says Christ, "I have 
commanded you." (Isa. lxv: 23; Gal. iii: 29.) Thus 
then, we have not only testimony for family baptisms, 
D ut a positive command, that infants, little children 
of believing parents and guardians, must be baptized. 
Moreover, the scope of the commission is like the 
nature of the atonement, designed to embrace all, 
even fall nations;'' and how nations without children, 
and how disciple all, if not by baptism, when both, 
teaching and baptizing, at the same time, could not y 
would not, reach all? Thus we see, that those who 
believe in adult, and not in infant baptism, because 
infants cannot believe, that they upon their own con- 
>n, are not themselves fit subjects for Christian 



Chap. 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 105 

baptism. What is the difference, if the one cannot 
believe, or the other believes only a part? Neither, 
then, are scriptural subjects. It will not take the 
wisdom of a Solomon to discover, though such speak 
much about faith, that theirs is deficient. It is said, 
'He that believes and is baptized,' &c. Does this 
not require us to believe all — the whole revealed 
Will of God — even that God has a people, a nation? 
(1 Pet. ii: 9, 10,) and hence children of all classes 
and sizes among them ? and how among them, if 
not distinguished by the sign or token by which he 
distinguishes, externally, his people ? Again, where 
are adults without baptism ? Are they visibly in the 
Church ? Hence where are children without bap- 
tism? Bojfaith and baptism put adults in the Church? 
If so, where, then, are children that cannot believe, 
and are not baptized ? Must they not naturally be 
out of the Church? Are they not, then, just where 
heathen children are ? If not, the principles of 
some men will — must — put all heathen children in 
the church. This is absurd. A demonstrative evi- 
dence^ again, of Family baptisms. 

Q,. 2. But is not sometimes the word 'nation' 
.used so as not to embrace infants, little children ? 

A. If so, prove that they are here excluded. — 
'Confute the above, and all the other arguments al- 
ready produced, as the result of Common sense and 
scriptural testimony. This, however, is impossible 
— cannot be done. 

Q. 3. What other proof can be given, that the 
apostolic commission embraces infants, as subjects 
for baptism ? 

A. This : It is, from a due consideration, too ab- 

[e2] 



106 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

surd to suppose it to contain a rejection, because — 

Firstly. — After the Apostles should have heard 

the Savior assert, when he spake of little children, 

1. 'Of such is the kingdom of Heaven. (Mark x: 14;) 

2. "Except ye be converted and become as little 
children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of Hea- 
ven." (Math, xviii: 3;) 

3. "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of 
God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. " 
(Mark x: 15;) 

4. "Whoso shall receive one such Utile child in 
my name, receiveth me," (Math, xviii: 5,) "and he 
that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me," 
(Math, x: 40; Mark ix: 37,) it could not have even 
entered their minds. 

Secondly. — After recollecting — 

1. That the commission was put into the hands of 
Jews, who never knew a church, that did not admit 
and maintain infant church membership; 

2. That Christ never taught them ceremonially to 
reject little children; 

3. That there could be no possible distinction be- 
tween heathen and other children till baptized. 

So then, we see again, that the entire tenor of 
of Scripture, on the subject of Baptism, goes not to 
exclude infants, little children, from the apostolic 
commission, but to include them, as well as adults; 
and that the Apostles baptized ichule families, -parents 
and children. 

Q. 4. What light does 1 Cor. i: 16, throw on this 
subject ? 

A. This: When St. Paul says, "I baptized also 
the household [oikon] of Stephanas: besides, I know 



Chap. 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 107 

not whether I baptized any other," evidently means 
any other household; which shows that the baptism 
of households was common — general — and that the 
other Apostles followed the same practice. 

Q. 5. Can you give the number of family bap- 
tisms recorded in scripture ? 

A. Firstly — four that are expressly named: — 

1. Cornelius and his house or family, Actsx: 2,43; 
xi* 14; 

2. The Jailor and his house, or family; Acts xvi: 
33; 

3. Lydia and her household, or family; Acts xvi: 
15; 

4. Stephanas' household^ or family; 1 Cor. i: 6. 

Secondly — five "not expressly stated as having 
been baptized:'-* — 

1. Aquilla and Priscilla's house, or family, Rom. 
xvi: 3—5; 

2. Nymphas' house, or family; Co!, iv: 15; 

3. Philemon's house, or family; Phil, i: 2; 

4. Crispus' house, or family; Acts xviii: 8; 

5. Onesipharus' house; 2Tiin. i: 16, or household, 
it: 19, or family. 

Thirdly — three ;c not expressly represented as 
families, nor as having received baptism:" 

1. Cesar's household, or family, Phil, iv: 22; 

2. Aristobulus' household, or family, Rom. xvi: 10; 

3. Narcissus' household, or family, Rom. xvi: 11. 
Thus we have in all, if we add the last three, 

twelve families. 

Q. 6. But how will you make it appear that the 
last eight were really baptized ? 

A. From the fact that the Apostles' work wa« 



108 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

not finished and complete, until tbey had also bap- 
tized as well as taught those families. Mark xvi: 
15; Acts x: 44, &c. Were they not baptized, how 
could they be termed "Saints," (Phil: iv: 22,) and 
thus distinguished from the world ? Having been 
taught, and having believed, could not do it. To be 
a Saint, with all else, requires baptism. Baptism is 
a duty. To neglect a duty, is a sin; therefore they 
were baptized. If not, not saints, but sinners. Here 
we ask, what distinguishes a little child from the 
world, and constitutes it a lamb of the saints? or are 
the lambs in the world, among the wolves, with- 
out a sign or token by which to know them ? — 
The only rational answer is: they are distinguished 
by the sign or token, Christian Baptism. How could 
it otherwise have been said of those families having 
been Ci in the Lord," had they not all been baptized? 
This cannot be said, under the light of the gospel, 
of unbaptized infants, nor adults, any more than of 
heathens. Hence, they were all baptized. Again, 
we have seen that the uniform practice of the Apos- 
tles was to baptize houses or households — whole fam- 
ilies. 

Q. 7. What might have been the probable num- 
ber of children baptized in those families ? 

A. If we allow six children to each family, 
and take in with the nine the other three households, 
we will have .seventy-two. Now when have we 
heard, in an extent o'' territory even like that of North 
America, of so many families without children, in 
which all the adults of each were converted, brought 
to believe, and all baptized, without a single exception? 
Let those who reject apostolic family baptisms an- 



Chap. 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 109 

swer the question. An evident proof that the Apos- 
tles baptized children with their parents; and that, 
naturally, something like the above number of chil- 
dren, belonging to those families, were baptized by 
the Apostles. 

Q. 8. What further proof for family baptisms can 
you furnish ? 

A. Apostolic example, or the Apostles' personal 
practice. This is certainly irresistible proof. St. 
Paul informs us, 1 Cor. i: 16, that he "baptized — the 
household [oikon] or family" of Stephanas. We are 
told, also, Acts xvi: 15, Lydia "was baptized and 
her house," [oikos, family,] and Acts xvi: 33, the 
Jailor "was baptized— and all his" [oikos] family, 
&c. Apostolic example, then, warrants family bap- 
tisms to be based upon Apostolic practice. 

Q. 9. But in what did the apostolic family bap- 
tisms consist? 

A. In the baptisms of parents, then as previously 
baptized, and all their children, natural and adopted, 
that had not yet arrived to moral accountability; even 
such families as contained no other subjects for bap- 
tism. Had the Apostles baptized only parents, and 
certain adult children, or such children indepen- 
dently of their parents, they co*ild not have told us 
(1 Cor. i: 16) they baptized families, but parts of 
families; and if only parents, no families again; for 
parents, separately from children, are no families. — 
As, too, they have not told us that they baptized only 
such families as were composed of all adults, and as 
not a single circumstance connected with all the 
family baptisms on record, goes to decide this mat- 
ter, but the reverse; and as they baptized such, on 



110 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

such occasions, of whose faith or action of the mind 
nothing is said, and thus giving us testimony that 
they were incapable of believing, we are compelled 
to conclude. How can we do otherwise ? as it is 
the only rational conclusion that can follow, that the 
apostolic family baptisms must have embraced little 
children? 

Q. 10. What do we learn from these bapti 
A. That were it possible to show that there had 
not been a single little child, in any family, of all the 
examples of family baptisms given in scripture, it 
could not overthrow the practice of family baptisms, 
and of those embracing- little children; because — 1. 
Apostolic example and practice is given for our imita- 
tion; 2. Not a single intimation that a single child n as 
excepted for want of faith ; . 3. Whole families were 
baptized, without it being said of any of having been 
under the influence of truth, but the parents. The 
conclusion, then, again is, and how can it be avoid- 
ed, that such were children, and must have been bap- 
tized upon the faith and responsibility of their pa- 
rents ? We then are authorized, by npostolic ex- 
ample and practice, to baptize whole families, until 
the Apostles come and give the exclusions of the 
little ones, iii families, as unscriptural subjects for 
Christian baptism. 



SECTION II. 



LYDIA AND THE JAILOR. 



Q. I. What do you make of the case of Lydia? 
A. She was a seller of purple; "a native- 1 of the 



Vhap.Z. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Ill 

city of Thyatira, "who had permanently settled at 
Philippi," (Acts xvi: 11 — 16,) whose case furnishes 
a fair specimen of family baptisms on the faith and 
professions of a parent. It is said of her, "Whose 
heart the Lord opened." Here, then, was evangel- 
ical faith. "And — she was baptized." Here, too, 
was a profession. Then it is added, "and her house' 
hold." We here remark, "The very best of all ver- 
sions — Syriac — probably of the first century — reads,' 
'And she [Lydia] was baptized, with her children.'* 
The Coptic version gives the same reading:" and as 
additional conclusive testimony that her household 
consisted of children, we make the inquiry whether 
her household was not baptized on her responsibility ? 
and if not, on whose then ? If they were not, why 
does not the Sacred Historian speak of this house- 
hold as he does of her, or at least in connection with 
her ? If a relation of the facts connected with her 
character, was recorded for our instruction, adevel- 
opement of those of her household would ha,ve been 
more so. As, however, her household consisted of 
children, therefore it is only said of her, "who wor- 
shipped God,— -heard us, — whose heart the Lord 
opened, that she attended unto the things which was 
spoken of Paul; and — she besought us, saying, if ye 
have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into 
my house and abide there: and she constrained us.'-* 
The case, then, is clear: these were family baptisms: 
the mother was baptized, and the children on her 
faith, profession and responsibility. Pervert it if 
you dare. (Gen. iii: 4.) 

Q. 2. Rut did not, after all, Lydia's household 
consist of all adult males ; and thus not a single child 



112 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

baptized? for it is said, [v. 40,] that the Apostles 
"entered into Lydia's house, and when they had seen 
the brethren they comforted them and departed ?" 

A. If so, her household was composed of a very 
tardy, sluggish, backivard, cold-hearted set afmcii, 
void of common courtesy! They needed instruction 
rather than comfort. We marvel not, then, at Ly- 
dia's good sense and sound judgment, when insisting 
on and constraining the Apostles, that she makes 
no plea in behalf of her household. "If ye have 
judged" them [these kind brethren] with "me to be 
faithful to the Lord, come into my house." But the 
fact was otherwise. Lydia's household were chil- 
dren, and 'the brethren,' to whom reference is had, 
were the pious of the place, who, at some other time, 
and on some other occasion, had been baptized upon 
their own responsibility, and who had, no doubt, 
hearts as good, kind, and candid as Lydia's; and on 
this occasion, perhaps, had once more met at her 
house, to hear of the Apostles a parting sermon. 

Q. 3. Is it, however, not certain, that these 
brethren [v. 40] were present at Lydia's baptism, 
and that they were 'comforted* while really in her 
house? 

A. The former cannot be; because we are told, 
[v. 13,] that the Apostles "spake unto the women 
who" had resorted thither, without the least Intima- 
tion that a single male was present: and as we hear 
nothing of the appellation 'brethren 9 till we come to 
the fortieth verse, and as her baptism, with the bap- 
tisms of her household, all took place previously, on 
the spot — even before she arrived at her house — it is 
obvious, it is even certain, that this case of baptisms 



Chap. 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 113 

was not even administered in their presence; less 
that the expression, household, should have embraced 
them. To have also termed all these females 'breth- 
ren,' would have been contrary to fact and the nature 
of language. A promiscuous assembly, however, 
may be properly so termed. But notwithstanding 
all this, if Lydia's household must consist of persons 
more advanced in years than children — such as were 
of adult age — it was composed of sisters, and not of 
brethren; so that then Lydia and her sisters were 
baptized. As to the latter, it cannot be positively 
determined, whether those ( brethren' were or were 
not in Lydia's house. It is merely said, [v. 40,] af- 
ter having entered her house, 'and when they had 
seen the brethren,' [it is not said where,] 'they 
comforted them and departed.' As, then, they 
that were baptized, were neither her brethren nor 
her sisters, they must have been her children. 

Q. 4. What do you make of the case of the 
Jailor ? 

A. The Jailor's case will furnish us with another 
specimen. (Acts xvi: 23 — 35.) We are told that 
the Jailor, under great conviction and dread of sin, 
said unto Paul and Silas, [v. 30,] "Sirs, what must 
I do to be saved ?" They replied, [v. 31 ,] "Believe 
on the Lord Jesus Christ." And upon this they 
promised him, and his house, salvation, i. e. upon 
these conditions. This man, then, had a family , or 
the Apostles could not have included, in the promise 
of salvation, his house. This was done to show the 
extent of the plan of salvation, and to invite him to 
embrace religion. It is true, it is said, "They 
spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all 



114 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part Z. 

that wtre in his house." [V. 32.] But this does 
not decide that they were all capable of understand- 
ing and obeying the doctrines taught; nor would we 
infer, on any other occasion, although it were as 
positively affirmed and said of a brother, that he 
preached to all, the whble family, that therefore 
there had not a single infant been present. But fur- 
ther, after the administration of baptism we are in- 
formed, "He — rejoiced, believing in God with all 
his house." [V. 34.] But it is also said, Jonah 
iii: 5, "The people of Nineveh believed God"" — • 
surely not the little children! — and yet they were 
embraced. Again, John xvii: 21, "That the ivorld 
may believe that thou hast sent me." Once more,. 
Horn, xv : 10, "Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his peo- 
ple." Infants are certainly here included in 
the expressions, 'tmtrld 9 and c Gentiles ,•' yet they 
are not meant as believing- and rejoicing-. So, 
also, 'believing in God, with all ids house,' may mean 
only such as were able to believe. "May there not* 5 
also "be infants in a family that rejoice, — young 
children — of four or five years of age, rejoice when 
parents rejoice?" Circumstances then warrant in 
stating, that when it is said, C( He — was bapiiz 
and all his," [v. 33,] that these, too, were fa 
baptisms, and consequently administered upon the 
faith, profession and responsibility of a parent or 
parents. 

Q. 5. But can additional light be thrown on these 
two cases of family baptisms ? 

A. There can, by distinguishing between 
New Testament use of the two Greek woi 
and c oikia, 5 which have been indiscriminately b 
: -house' or 'household:* 



Chap. 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 115 

Firstly — the word oikos " signifies, metaphorically 
— the nearest possible degree of kindred:' 1 1. Such as 
parents and children; Heb. xi: 7, "Noah prepared 
an ark to the saving of his [oikos] house." 2. Chil- 
dren distinct from parents; 2 Tim. i: 16; "The 
Lord give mercy unto the [oiko] house of Onesipha- 
rus;" 1 Tim. iii: 2 — 5; "A bishop must be blameless 
—one thatruleth well his own [oikon] house, having 
Ms children in subjection.'/ Here little children are 
embraced. 1 Tim. v: 14, 'I will therefore that the 
younger women marry, bear children,' [oikodespo - 
tein] 'guide the house,' literally, ^child-despotising,' 
i. e. 'despotise their family.' Here babes and suck- 
lings are meant. 3. Lineage, Luke i: 17, Joseph 
was"ofthe [oikon] house of David." 4. The family 
of God; Heb. x: 21, Jesus is declared to be "A High 
Priest over the [oikon] house of God." It is said by 
a learned divine, "We do not know a passage in 
which it [oikos] includes servants." 

Secondly — The word oikia includes "all that hold 
to the house," whether all related, only a part, or 
none of them. When it embraces kindred, it then 
does not definitely give the connection existing. — 
Math, x: 2, "When you come into a [oikion,] house, 
[i. e. any house,] salute it;" viz. all that hold to it. 
Again, v. 13, "And if the [oikia] house be worthy, 
let your peace come upon it." Once more, Math. 
xii: 25, "Every city or [oikia] house divided against 
itself shall not stand." Thus this word, oikia, an- 
swers to our English word, household, all that hold to 
a house.* 



* Nor does oikos, in I Cor. i: 1G, conflict with the use of 
oikia, in 1 Cor. xvi: 15. Might not the Apostle have changed 
the language, because of an increase of persons; as having 



116 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

In confirmation of the above,, we give the testimo- 
ny of a noted author, who says: "It should be observ- 
ed that in the New Testament there are two Greek 
words which our translators have rendered both 
house and household: in their time usage did not sep- 
arate them. The first, iokos, signifies the immedi- 
ate family of the householder; the other, oikia, in- 
cludes his servants also; and they are not interchang- 
ed in respect of persons in the original. Hence we 
never read of oikia as being- baptized, but of oikos 
only: the children following their parents in this 
rite, but not the servants their proprietors, masters 
or mistress." In addition to all this, another of equal 
credit "offers no less than Jifty examples in proof of 
the fact that oikos — when used in application of per- 
sons, denote a family of children, including children 

held, by this time, to this house ? so that, according to the 
original, it was no longer a family but a household. Those 
who doubt this, we would refer to Rom. xvi: 5, for certainly 
there could not have been two " first-fruits of Achaia." Nor 
is there any difficulty in reconciling the parallels, Math, 
x: 11 — 16, and Luke x: 3 — 8. Oikia being more extensive in 
signification than oikos, the former, in the.se passages, to 
express any possible natural state of a household, or of those 
holding to a house, has been chosen. Hence it is said. (Luke 
x: 5,) -'Into whatsoever [oikian] house,'' ^ c; for which, 
(Math, x: 12,) is substituted, in the expression, "Salute //,*' 
auten. This could not be otherwise in using a pronoun. 
But, in the salutation itself, (Luke x: 5,) "Peace be to this 
[oiko] house," oiko is used to give the persons intended to 
have been specified in the salutation— the spiritually rela- 
ted. This is truly kindred. Math, xii: 46. a c. Not that all 
were thus related to each other, or to the Disciples, but were 
to be saluted as such, in order to discover who might be. 
Therefore it is said, (Luke x: 6,) "If the son of peace be 
there," evidently if he should be found there. The reason, 
then, for the difference in the two cases, that of St. Paul's 
and the Evangelists', is natural. Oikos embraces both nat- 
ural and spiritual kin. It might also have answered, then,, 
in both passages—in I Cor. i: 16, and 1 Cor. xvi: 15— had it 
not been for Rom. xvi: 5. The latter had to be reconciled; 
with 1 Cor. xvi: 15. Llence the exchange, oikia fur oikos v 



Chap. 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 117 

of all ages, and assures us that as many as three 
hundred instances have been examined, and have 
proved perfectly satisfactory." 

1. This then decides the case of Lydia more fully 
than ever. It is said, Actsxvi: 15, "When she was 
baptized and her [oikos] household, i. e. her family , 
her "nearest possible degree of kindred, her chil- 
dren." Moreover, the circumstances given warrant 
us in saying that she was at least a tolerably young 
woman; 'we therefore demand valid reason why 
the family attached to their mother, Lydia, was not a 
young family?' Hence it follows, that this wa.s fam- 
ily baptisms— ^children baptized on the faith, profess- 
ion and responsibility of a mother. 

We would however here state, that oikos and 
oikia, when used in designating a house, as the ap- 
pellation of a building, are synonymous. Acts ii: 2, 
"And it filled all the [oikon] house;" xvi: 15, "Come 
into my [oikon] house;" Heb. iii: 4, "Every [oikos] 
house;" Math, ii: 11, "When they were come into 
the [oikian] house;" Math, vii: 25, "Beat upon that 
[oikia] house." 

2. With this all in view, the case of the Jailor is 
equally clear. Acts xvi: 23 — 35, he refers [v. 30,] 
to Paul and Silas for information. They reply, [v. 
31,] "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou 
shalt be saved, and thy [oikas] house:" i.e. thy fam- 
ily, thy children. Then it is said, [v. 32,] they spake 
unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were 
in his [oikia'] house;" evidently to all that held to 
or were then present in the house, including servants, 
prisoners, &c; "for oikos is dropped and oikia sub- 
stituted." Then [v. 34,] when he had brought them 



118 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

into his Hokon] house" — his own apartment. Under 
these circumstances [v. 33] "He — was baptized — - 
aud all his" [v. 31 iokos — his family, children] — 
and [v. 34] "he — rejoiced, believing in God with 
[panoiki] all his house;" i. e. "He believing' in 
God rejoiced all the house over" — that is, where 
they had assembled — or, believing in God, "he 
went to every apartment" of that part of the pris- 
on, "expressing his joy." The Greek will admit 
of this rendering; and do not the circumstances 
given of this man, and our experience, suggest such 
a translation ? How can it be denied ? What is not 
the joy of some newly converted persons ? Again, 
we appeal also to common sense, whether this 
family was not a young family ? See the ambition 
of this man in drawing his sword; r. [27;] his activ- 
ity, in springing into the apartment in which Paul 
and Silas were, [v. 29;] and remember that an aged 
man is not entrusted with an office of this nature. 
The Sacred Penman, then, has, with nicity and dis- 
crimination, given us all the circumstances connect- 
ed with the case. Hence our conclusions, and they 
can be none else, but this man was in the prime of 
life, with a numerous family of small children; and 
that the Aprstles administered the ordinance of bap- 
tism to a whole family; and that the children were 
baptized upon the faith, profession and responsibility 
of their parent or parents. 

Q. 6. What other additional and undeniable tes- 
timony can be produced, that Lydia's household and 
the Jailor's house were composed of children ? 

A. From the uniformity of the Scriptures, in all 
cases of adult baptisms; in such persons or subject* 



Chap. 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 119 

having been first more or less brought under the in- 
fluence of truth: whilst we have not a syllable about 
the state of heart of Lydia's household and the Jail- 
or's house. This silence, then, is testimony, une- 
quivocal, and to the point — even such as cannot be 
withstood — that these houses were families, numer- 
ously composed of little children. Those who doubt 
these facts, are kindly invited to examine the follow- 
ing cases: 

It is said, Acts ii: 41, on the reception of the won 1 , 
the three thousand were baptized; viii: 12, the Sa- 
maritans "believed" — and "were baptized;" v. 13, 
Simon — "believed — and — was baptized;" viii: 37-39 
"The Eunuch — believed and was baptized;" x: 44 
— 46, the Gentiles who heard the word and received 
the Holy Ghost [v. 48] were baptized; xvi: 14 — 16, 
Lydia's heart was "opened," and she was baptized; 
v. 31, the Jailor was required to believe, and [v. 33] 
upon this he was baptized; xviii: 8, the Corinthians 
"believed" and were baptized; xix: 1 — 6, the Dis- 
ciples were required to believe, upon which they 
were baptized; xxii: 1 — 16, Saul must have believed, 
and [ix:] 18 he was baptized. 



SECTION III. 



Church must be Washed. Eph. ▼: •' - V 
Children Disciples. John iii: 2, &c. 

Q. 1. What is said of the Church in Eph. v: 23? 
A. That "Christ is the head of the Church— the 
Savior of the body." 

Q. 2. What do we learn from this passage ? 



120 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

A. That Church and Body are synonymous terras, 
i. c. mean the same thing. In Eph. i: 22, 23, it 
is said, Christ is "the head over all things to the 
church, which is his body." (Col. i: 18.) 

Q. 3. Are Infants any part of this body, the 
church ? 

A. t If not, they have no Savior. (Mark x. 14.)-— 
In Eph. v: 25 we are, however, told, "Christ — loved 
the church and gave himself for it." 

Q. 4. With what design ? 

A. Eph. v: 26, "That he might sanctify and 
cleanse it [the body or church] with the i6ashing" of 
water by the word." 

Q. 5. What do you understand by this passage ? 

A. As there is nothing of a religious nature in 
the church of Christ by which water and the word of 
God^are connected and used religiously, but Chris- 
tian baptism, we are necessitated to conclude that 
reference is had to that ordinance, as a thing setting 
forth emblematically the purifying efficacy of the 
blood of Christ, and the effects of the Holy Spirit 
upon the heart of the subject. 'It' [the body or 
church] then is to undergo 'the washing of water by 
the word:' i.e. in connection with the word. (Mark 
xvi: 15 — 17.) It is then as clear as noon-day, that 
little children must be baptized, or only a part of 
the church is ceremonially washed. Again testi- 
mony that Infants are included in the apostolic com- 
mission: — proof of family baptisms. 

Q. 6. Is it then a sin to neglect the baptism of 
little children — infants ? 

A. Certainly. It is the rejection of what Christ 
intended symbolically to set forth and teach the 



Ohap.5 t >. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 12* 

world, in the redemption of a greater portion of his 
body, the church. 

Q. 7. What light does the title, "Rabbi," as an 
appellation given to the Lord Jesus, (John iii: 2,)' 
throw on the baptism of little children? 

A. This: " Teachers among the Jews were 
called Rabbij or Rab; the radical meaning of which 
word is great t As the teacher was thus called 
great, his disciples, standing in a contrasted relation . 
to him,, were called small or little one3. Thus 
this phrase, little ones, came to be synonymous with 
disciples j whether the teacher claimed or did not 
claim the title, Rabbi," Now as the Savior termed 
little children, 'little onesf (Math, xviii: 6,) there-' 
fore little children are his scholars or disciples; 
(Eph. vk 4;) and as the Apostles baptized the Disci- 
ples (Acts x: 47, &c.) of the Lord Jesus Christ, they 
must have baptized little children — nuhole families. 
(Acts xvi: 13—16, 25—35.) 

Q. 8. But is there really reference had, in Math, 
xviii: 6-, to a little child? 

A. The Savior tells us so; hence, how can we 
doubt it? (See v. 2—7.) 

Q. 9. But how can a little child believe[v. 6] in 
the name of the Lord Jesus ? 

A. We answer this question by proposing a few 
others: How does a child believe in the names of our 
candidates for Governor, President, and a thousand 
other things ? Have little children then no faith? 
cannot they believe? Ah, verily, they are not half 
as skeptical as many grown persons! Could they 
not then believe in the name and fame of the Lord 
Jesus Qbrist? 

w 



122 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2 

Q. 10. Why not then baptize little children that 
are capable of believing, on their own responsibility? 

A. Because the act of their profession, under the 
administration of the ordinance, would not amount 
to moral accountability. 

Q. 11. What do you make of the expression in 
v. 5, where the Savior says, "Whoso shall receive 
one such little child in my name, receiveth me?" 

A. As no other process is laid down in scripture 
by which any person ever was publicly received by 
another in the name of the Lord Jesus, than by bap- 
tism, and that being given as the process (Acts x: 43) 
by which such as were born out of the church were 
ceremonially received into the kingdom of God, we 
must at once conclude — we are compelled to do 
so — that a little child, born out of the church, in a 
state of innocency like that Jewish child, with proper 
sponsors, must be received into the kingdom of 
Christ by baptism, in the name of the Lord Jesus. 
Hence, also, a duty to recognise, by the same rite, 
those born in the church. If one be right, both are 
right. 

Q. 12. What light does the phrase in Acts ii: 33, 
''Baptized — in the name of Jesus Christ," afford on 
this subject? 

A. By this, and all similar expressions, (Acts viii: 
16; x: 43; xix: 5,) we understand that the Apostles 
baptized in accordance with the nature and direction 
of the apostolic commission. (Math, xxviii: 19.) 
This is evident. To do a thing in the name of a 
person, is to do it by his authority. For example, a 
deputy sheriff does all in the name of the sheriff, or 
by his authority. This was exactly the case with 
the Apostles. They baptized in the name and by 



Chap. 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 123 

the authority of Christ. As Christ, therefore, had 
not only commissioned and authorized them to 
preach, but also to baptize, "in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," 
hence, whenever circumstances brought them to 
refer to water baptism, as a peculiar feature of the 
functions of their office, and of its authority, they 
always expressed themselves in that language: so 
that all that were baptized in accordance with the 
apostolic commission, could justly be said to have 
been baptized, or received, by that rite, in the name 
of Christ. When, therefore, the Lord Jesus said, 
'Whoso shall receive,' [in future, as the properly 
authorized,] 'one such little child' — such as already 
above stated, 'in my name, receiveth me,' he must 
have referred, we again repeat it, to water baptism, 
to the apostolic commission, as embracing little chil- 
dren of believing parents; and of course, then, also,. 
to infants. Tne conclusion is too obvious to be 
waved. 

Q. 13. What do we further learn from this pass- 
age, in connection with the one in Math, x: 40 ? 

A. It is said by the blessed Redeemer, Math, 
xviii: 5, ' Whoso shall receive one such little child in 
my name, receiveth me ,*' and then again, Math, x: 40, 
'and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent 
me.' It then of course follows, that if we refuse to 
baptize a little child, that we, by this rejection, not 
only reject the child, but the Lord Jesus Christ and 
the Father that sent him. Test the truth and prove 
the force of this passage, by putting reject instead of 
receive. 'Whoso shall reject one such little child,' 
that is to be received 'in my name' by baptism^ 're- 
jecteth me, and he that rejecteth me, rejecteth him 



124 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

that sent me.' Again, try Mark ix: 37, "Whosoever 
shall reject one of such children, " that is to be receiv- 
ed "in my name 1 " by baptism, "rejecteth me, and who- 
soever shall reject me, rejecteth not me, but him that 
sent me." This, then, is the result of the boasted 
wisdom of Immersion! Who can? who dare 
teach it?!! 

Q. 14. What was the true state of things, related 
on the subject of baptism, in 1 Gor. i: 16? 

A. This: St. Paul informs us that he "Baptized— 
the household [oikon] of Stephanas," by which he 
excludes the baptism of Stephanas himself: who may f 
however, indeed have, at some other place, by some 
other person, and on some other occasion/been still 
baptized. This appears evident from the fact that 
these were family baptisms — the baptisms of Stepha- 
nas' children: — -from the fact, too, that the Apostles 
were accustomed to baptize on the responsibility of 
parents. (Actsxviil3 — 16; 23^-35.) It would have 
been too rare a thing to have heard of a. whole family , 
all of adult age^-^all, without a single exception, 
brought at once under gospel influence, in a heathen 
land, and all at once baptized — -without effecting, too, 
a single stranger at the time; and they all thus becom- 
ing "the first fruits of Achaia," (1 Cor. xvi: 15,) had 
not this family consisted of little children. 

Q. 15. But how could this family have embraced 
little ehildren, when it is said, 1 Cor. xvi: 15, that 
"They — 'addicted themselves to the ministry of the 
Baints ? " 

A. This is reconcilable, from the fact that little 
children, if spared, do not always remain little chil- 
dren. Again, they could not all have been of one 



Chap. 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 125 

age. Some were, no doubt, nearly grown up — per- 
haps the majority — who, in a few years, were then alj 
capable of so doing. It is also customary, when the 
majority of a people or family does thus and so, that 
we use language which embraces them all. 

( O^See note at bottom of page 140. ) 

Q. 16. What is the meaning of being "born o* 
the Water and of the Spirit?" John iii: 5. 

A. To undergo a two-fold change, — one by Bap- 
tism and the other by the Holy Spirit. Baptism 
changes our relative condition and heathen name, 
and thus externally constitutes us legllay a part of 
Christ's Church on earth. The Holy Spirit changes 
out hearts, all the feelings and affections of the soul; 
converts and brings us on a level with little children; 
and thus we are brought spiritually to be united to 
that body, the Church, of which Christ is the Head. 

Q. 17. Does this passage exclude infants ft om 
Christian Baptism ? 

A. It does not. It is peculiarly and only appli- 
cable to unconverted adults, born out of the Churcji. 
Should it, however, exclude infants, on similar prem- 
ises, it would also exclude converted and regenera- 
ted adults, (Acts x: 41,) those morally Jit for the 
kingdom of Heaven. 

Q. 18. What do we learn from Simon the Sor- 
cerer's case, Acts viii: 9 — 25 ? 

A. That if infant subjects, after their baptism, 
under all the care of pious sponsors, should grow 
wicked, that neither they nor adults should be bap- 
tized the second time: that that, too, should not be" 
made an objection to Christian baptism being ad- 
ministered to either of such, as they may, notwith- 
standing, repent, be converted and saved. There is, 



126 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part ft. 

however, imminent danger in such a course of life. 
The language of the Apostle is very emphatic on this 
subject. After pointing out [v. 21] his sin, he says, [v. 
22,] upon the conditions of mercy, "If perhaps the 
thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." 

Q. 19. What do you make of the expression, 
(Math, vi: 10,) "Thy will be done, in earth as it is in 
Heaven ?" 

A. That as God's will is done in Heaven by him 
receiving and accepting of adults and infants, upon 
the principle of moral fitness, based on the atone- 
ment of the blessed Redeemer, and not in the mer- 
it of an act of either, or others, that therefore we are 
bound to receive, by baptism, the means appointed 
in the Word of God, infants as well as adults, into 
the church on earth, or his will is not 'done in earth 
as it is in Heaven.' 

Q. 20. What do we further learn from this pass- 
age ? 

A. That Christ does not speak as many in our 
day. 

1. That little children are visibly in the church, 
because fit. Were this so, they would be visibly in 
Heaven, because fit; — those of believing parents and 
heathens — all. They then would be capable of oc- 
cupying two places at once. 

2. That they cannot be received into the church 
[it ought to be reinstated in the church] by baptism, 
until they can be taught, repent and believe. Again, 
were this so, they then could not be received into 
Heaven, until they could be taught, repent and be- 
lieve. Must all, then, that die in a state of innocen- 
cy, be lost ? The will of God is not thus done in 



Chmp. 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 127 

Heaven, nor can it be so done on earth. Christ then 
had reasons for teaching us this petition. He also 
looks for its practice. 

Q. 21. How do you understand Acts ii: 29, "The 
promise is to you, and to your children, and to all 
that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God 
shall call ? » 

A. This: 'The promise [of grace and mercy^ is 
unto you, [Jews,] and to your children, and to all 
that are afar off, [the Gentiles,] even as many as the 
Lord our God shall call.' Christ declares, (John x: 
16,) that these Jews and Gentiles shall constitute 
"onefold," and that they shall have "one shepherd." 
It is then certain, these are parallel passages; i. e. 
embrace the same facts. This, then, proves that the 
promise [of grace and mercy] expressed by St. Peter 
was not only extended to adult Jews and Gentiles, 
but also to their children — even to their infants; — 
for who ever has seen a fold that was always 
without, and never embraced lambs?—' >and (Isa. 
xl: 11) if they did, that there should be nothing 
to distinguish them as such? (Math, xxv: 33.) — 
Again, Christ calls his Church (Math, xxi: 43) a 
Kingdom. Was there ever a kingdom without chil- 
dren? [none but that of the bottomless pit!] and 
that, too, without a single enactment of law to em- 
brace them ? Christ in this passage declared, he 
would take the kingdom from the Jews, [i. e., who 
rejected him, — and as a general thing, now fulfill- 
ed] — which, by the by, however, embraced claldren, 
and give it "to a nation, [the Gentiles,'] bringing 
forth the fruits thereof." Now, who ever has known 
of a nation without children? If Christ has not given 
ua a kingdom in which infants are ceremonially set 



123 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. iPart*. 

apart to God, and thus recognized, then he has not 
given us the kingdom which once belonged to the 
Jews. Shall then his word be forfeited by the re- 
jection of infant baptism, and we by this act say the 
above promise was not fulfilled, was not intended to 
embrace infants, but adult children? or shall men 
learn to think, teach and act aright, and as Chris- 
tians/ One or the other must be done. This is 
again, then, testimony that the Apostles baptized in- 
fants — whole families. 

Q. 22. What appears to be the substance of 
what is contained in the passage as found in 1 Cor. 
vii: 14, "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by 
the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by 
the husband: else were your children unclean, but 
now are they holy!" 

A. The Apostle would not have us to understand 
by the sanctity of the believing companion, as man 
and wife, that the sanctity of the one is of such a 
nature as to produce in the other companion, or in 
the children, purity of heart; but that the sanctity 
of the one shall predominate in such families over 
the impurity of the other, so as to render the children 
holy, or church members. 

Q. 23. How will you prove this true ? 

Thus: Holy, in the Sacred Scriptures, when not 
applied to the heart, signifies set apart, separated from 
something common, to sacred purposes, as the Sab- 
bath: it "being set apart from a common to a reli- 
gious use," therefore termed "holy;" "so the ves- 
eela of the temple, the vestments of the high-priests, 
ice, were holy." The Jews were called a ( holy 
people,'' — not because they were all, or even a major- 
ity of them, spiritually holy,— but because they were 



Chap. 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. V29 

•eparated from the rest of the world." So too "the 
Christian world may be regarded as holy, — because 
severed from the heathen." This, then, gives us 
not only the idea of the Apostle, which he attached 
to holy, but to the word unclean. To do, then, this 
phrase justice, and give the true sense of the passage 
which he wished to convey, would, by using his own 
language, be this; "Else were your children un~ 
clean, or heathens; but now are they holy — <church 
members. The reason, because separated from the 
world by virtue of a parent's right, and thus entitled 
to baptism, the sign or token and seal of the coven- 
ant of grace. 

Q. 24. What may yet additionally be advanced 
in testimony of the true interpretation of this pass- 
age, from the unequivocal use, in scripture, of the 
word 'holy' ? 

A. This: "We challenge" the world "to refer 
to a single passage in which any other than members 
of the church of Christ are designated by the term 
'holy.' If, then, little children are declared by the 
Apostle to be 'holy,* does it not, then, follow, that 
he regarded them as members, and if members, must 
they not have been honored with the public sign of 
membership, or in other words have been baptized:" 
yea, families of them ? 

Q. 25. But should the sanctity of a parent, un- 
der such a state of things, be productive of the right 
of membership to children, why not, then, to the un- 
converted companion 7 

A. 1. Because St. Paul never intended to convey 
•uch an idea. 2. Adults in an unconverted state, 
are destitute of moral fitness for membership of the 



130 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, Part 3. 

church, until either convicted or converted, and 
also for heaven, till regenerated, which is not the 
case with little children. 3. Because contrary to 
apostolic example. Never did the Apostles baptize 
adults upon the faith and profession of another. 

Q. 26. But do not some writers on baptism, de- 
clare, that the Apostle intended this passage to con- 
fute the idea of a divorce; stating, " that should such 
parents separate, they would thereby declare their 
marriage contract to have been unlawful, their chil- 
dren unclean or bastards: but by continuing together 
as man and wife, they should be considered 'holy* 
or lawful children?" 

A. They do. See the reason, 1 Cor. ii: 14.— 
ghould the Apostle, however, have reasoned on the 
lawfulness of marriage, then, scripturally, one of the 
parties given in marriage, must necessarily always 
be pious, in order to render marriage valid* This is 
absurd. St. Paul, without making any exceptions, 
says, Heb. xiii: 4, "Marriage is honorable in all," 
&c. Let us therefore test the Apostle's reasoning. 
He tells us, 'The unbelieving husband is sanctified 
by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by 
the husband? else were your children unclean* — ■ 
bastards—' but now are they Iwly'*— lawful children* 
But before such an interpretation can be taken, it 
must be shown that the word 'holy,' in the Bible, 
is applied to legitimacy of birth, 

Q. 27. What does this section incontestably es- 
tablish ? 

A. "Our doctrine," that the covenant of Circum- 
cision was what we now term the Gospel Covenant, 
even the covenant of Grace; that Baptism comes in 
room of Circumcision^ that as a covenant, it is yet in 



Chap. 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 131 

existence; that the Church, under the New dispen- 
sation, is but the continuation of that under the Old; 
"that, by the appointment of God himself, the infants 
of believing parents are born members of his church," 
and that Christian Baptism is only sometimes ini- 
tiatory. 



CHAPTER VI. 



A CONCISE VIEW OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 



SECTION I. 



2 1 he Origin of Terms, #c. 



Q. 1. How will you accomplish the object of 
giving these terms t 

A. Thus: By giving such as are embraced in the 
expression used by the Lord Jesus Christ, when he 
spake of little children, whom he took upon his 
arms, blessed, and said, Math, x: 14, "Of such is the 
kingdom, of God:" viz: 1. By moral fitness; 2. Cov- 
enanted relation; 3. Ceremonial recognition. 

Q. 2. What do you understand by these terms t 

A. 1. By moral fitness, that all children, in a 
state of innocency, have, through Christ's atone- 
ment, been rendered morally fit for heaven. 

2. By covenanted relation, that all childreri, having 
pious parents or guardians, have, by virtue of their 
birth or adoption, been brought into stipulated union 
with God and his people. 

3. By ceremonial recognition, that all children^ 
having pious parents or guardians, have a right to 



132 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

Christian baptism, and must be ceremonially acknowl* 
edged by it as members of the visible church of God. 
Q. 3. What does the declaration, 'of such is the 
kingdom of God,' warrant? 

A. That those children had been ceremonially 
Acknowledged by circumcision, or Christ could not 
have said, 'of such is the kingdom of God,' and God, 
at the same time say, Gen. xvii: 14, those souls are 
"cut off" from their people j they have "broken my 
covenant." 

Q. 4. When then can it only with truth be said 
of the children of believing parents, like Christ said 
of those Jewish children, 'of such is the kingdom of 
God?' 

A. Not until they are baptized. As Circumcis- 
ion has been abrogated, it of course follows, that if 
little children are not to be ceremonially set apart 
by Baptism, under the New dispensation, that it can 
never again, in the same sense, be said of them, 
what Christ said of those Jewish children, 'of such 
is the kingdom of God;' 1. By moral fitness; 2. 
covenanted relation; 3. ceremonial recognition. — 
Hence the shadow, the externals of the Old covenant, 
would be made superior to the subslance, the eater- 
turfs of the New. This is absurd. A manifest, in- 
controvertible proof, that little children of pious pa- 
rents, must be baptised. 

Q. 5. What use on Christian baptism are the 
facts found in Mark x: 15 1 

A. "Much every way:" because it is certain 
that— 

1. All the children of the pious and wicked, in a 
Kate of innocency, are morally Jit for the kingdom 



Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 133 

of God: [were this not so, some dying in this state, 
would be lost;] 

It is also certain, that if all such children were in 
the kingdom of God, Christ could not have made the 
declaration, "Whosoever shall not receive the king- 
dom of God as a little child, [i. e, as a little child 
receives it,'] he shall not enter therein;" 

Therefore, as there are some born out of the 
church, [the children of the wicked,] and as there 
is no other visible process, but baptism, whereby to 
receive such into the kingdom of God, they must, in 
order to be brought into the church, be baptized, or 
they will, as children, remain forever out. 

2. Adults, we are told, are to "receive the king- 
dom of God as a little child;" [of course as such re- 
ceive it that are born out of the church} Mark x: 15;] 

It is again certain, alittle child cannot receive the 
kingdom of God upon the principles of repentance 
and faith: [they have nothing of which to repent — 
cannot savingly believe;] 

Therefore adults cannot receive the kingdom of 
God upon the principles of repentance andjaith. 

3. A little child receives the kingdom of God 
upon the principles of moral Jitness , based upon the 
atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ; 

Adults are to ( receive the kingdom of God as a little 
child:' (Markx; 15;) 

Therefore adults must receive the kingdom of God 
upon the principles of moral Jitness, based upon the 
atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

4. Adults are not visibly in the kingdom of God, 
(John iii: 5,) even after conversion, [born of the 
•pirit,] until baptized; [therefore commanded. Math. 



134 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 1 

xxviii: 19;] no more than an innocent child of the 
wicked; [should the one be in, the other must:] 

Adults are to 'receive, [spiritually and visibly,} 
the kingdom of God as a littte child;' 

Therefore little children must be baptized, or 
adults receive the kingdom of God differently from 
a little child. 



SECTION II, 



THE CEREMONIAL DEVELOPEMENT OE OTHERS, AND 
THEIR APPLICATION. 



Q. 1. What is Christian Baptism? 

A. 1. A sign or token of moral fitness; 2. A sign 
or token whereby God acknowledges his subjects; 3. 
A sign or token of separation; 4. A sign or token, a 
eeal of the righteousness of faith; 5. A sign or token 
of salvation or deliverance* 

Q. 2. How will you make all this appear ? 

A. From the comparison made by St. Paul be- 
tween certain circumstances connected with the Is- 
raelites and their passage through the Red Sea, and 
Christian Baptism. He says, 1 Cor. x: 1 — «3, "More- 
over, brethren, I would not that ye should be igno- 
rant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, 
and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized 
unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." We have 
then the declaration, 'were all baptized.'— 
Then it cannot be denied, but — 

1. The Israelites were baptized; [God the admin- 
istrator;] 

They then were morally fit; [God the Judge. It 



Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 135 

matters not, then, in what this moral fitness consist- 
ed. It is enough that we know the fact.] 

Therefore baptism is a sign or token of moral fit- 
ness. 

2. The Israelites were God's subjects, (Ex. iii: 7; 
*ii: 4, 6.) 

All his subjects, and none else, were baptized; 
Therefore baptism is a sign or token whereby God 
^acknowledges his subjects. 

3. The Israelites were separated from their ene- 
mies, the Egyptians; (Ex.xiv: 20;) 

Under these circumstances they were baptized; 
(1 Cor. X: 1—3;) 

Therefore baptism is a sign or token of separa- 
tion. 

4. The Israelites acted inprospect of future good^ 
originating from God; this is faith: [they looked for 
deliverance; Heb. xi: 29;] 

Under these circumstances they were baptized; 

Therefore baptism is a sign or token and seal of 
the righteousness of faith. [God always verifying his 
promises.] 

5. The Israelites were saved or delivered from 
their enemies, the Egyptians; (Ex. xivt 30;) 

Under these circumstances they were baptized; 
Therefore baptism is a sign or token of salvation 
or deliverance. 

Q. 3. What have you accomplished by all this t 
A. We have fully, beyond the possibility of a 
cavil, demonstrated that baptism is, as above assert- 
ed — 1. A sign or token of moral fitness; 2. A sign or 
token whereby God acknowledges his subjects; 3, 
A sign or token of separation; 4. A sign or token 



136 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Partt. 

and seal of the righteousness of faith; 5. A sign or 
token of salvation or deliverance. 

Q. 4, But what additional scriptural evidence 
can be given of the above T 

A. 1. St. Peter's comparison made between the 
ark, flood) persons and circumstances connected with 
that memorable event and Christian baptism. He 
tells us, (1 Pet. iii: 20—22,) that it was "The like 
figure, whereunto, even Baptism, doth also now 
save us." A mere glance at this matter shows that 
those who entered the ark were morally fit, were 
God's subjects; were separated; acted upon the prin- 
ciples of 'faith; were saved, or delivered. This then 
again proves our position. 

2. Those at Cornelius' house, Acts x: 44, &c, 
were morally fit; were God's subjects; were separa- 
ted, set apart to God; had faith; were saved or deliv- 
ered, at the time, from sin. 

3. L) r dia and her household, Acts x: 14 — 16, were 
morally fit; were God's subjects; were separated, 
set apart to God; she had faith in God, in matters re- 
lating to herself and household: — ["But this house- 
hold consisted of adult brethren, v. 40." Then 
prove it, — make it appear that household, (oikos T ) 
means adult brethren! — a mere assertion will not 
do. St. Luke says nothing about their faith; so they 
must have been children, or the evangelist must 
have made a most egregious mistake in informing 
us, in order to teach us, 2 Tim. iii: 16, 17, to imi- 
tate the example of the Apostle, that he baptized 
them, and yet says nothing about their faith. "They 
had faith." Prove it: we take nothing without testi- 
mony.] They were saved or delivered from a former 
state, to which God could not be reconciled. Odcc 



'Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 137 

more, then, in two more instances, is not baptism 
positively what we have already proved it to be; I, 
A sign or token of moral fitness; 2. A sign or token 
whereby God acknowledges his subjects, &c.?* 

Q. 5. But what is your intention in proving all 
this ? 

A. This: The blessed Savior, (Math, xix: 14,) 
positively asserted, when speaking of little children, 
"Of such is the kingdom of Heaven." Then — 

1. Little children are morally fit for this kingdom, 
the Church; 

Baptism is a sign or token of moral fitness; 
Therefore little children are entitled to baptism. 

2. Little children then too are God's subjects; 
Baptism is a sign or token whereby God acknowl- 
edges his subjects; 

Therefore, little children must be baptized. 

3. Little children, as God's subjects, as well a g 
adults, God separates, sets apart from the wicked 
and ungodly world; (Ex. xivi 20.) 

Baptism is a sign or token by which this separa- 
tion is made; (1 Cor.x: 1 — 3 

Therefore little children must, in order to be sep- 
arated and set apart, be baptized. 

4. Little children are subjects of faith; [you be- 
lieve they arCf through Christ, morally Jit for heaven, 
God's subjects; deny it if you dare;] 

Baptism is a sign or token and seal of the right- 
eousness of faith, (Mark xvi: 16:) [See that you be- 
lieve all.] 

♦Does this not look like Circumcision? Seep. 54 — 56. 
A manifest evidence, again, that Baptism comes in room of 
•Circumeidion. 



13S CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2, 

Therefore little children must be baptized; (James 
ii: 20, 26.) [See well to works.] 

5. Little children must also be saved or deliver- 
ed from their depraved nature, or they have no Sa- 
vior; 

Baptism is a sign or token of salvation or deliver- 
ance; 

Therefore little children are entitled to baptism, 
the sign or token of salvation or deliverance. — 
Again — 

1. Baptism is a sign or token of moral fitness for 
the kingdom of Heaven, or Church; 

Infants are morally fit for this kingdom or Church; 
(Math, xix: 14.) 

Therefore infants must be baptized. 

2. Baptism is a sign or token whereby God ac- 
knowledges his subjects; 

Infants are his subjects; (Math, xix: 14.) 
Therefore infants must be baptized. 

3. Baptism is a sign or token whereby God sepa- 
rates, sets apart his subjects; 

Infants, as his subjects, must be separated, set 
apart; (Eph.vi: 4.) [They are not allowed to serve 
Satan.] 

Therefore infants must be baptized. 

4. Baptism js a sign or token, a seal of the right- 
eousness of faith; * 

Infants are subjects of faith in the hearts of be- 
lievers; 

* A seal is a sign or token of an acknowledgment ; 

Baptism is the sign or token of the acknowledgment of 
God's people; (Acts x: 44, <$c:) 

Therefore, Baptism is the seal of tb,e acknowledgment of 
God's people. 



Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 139 

Therefore infants must be baptized. 

5. Baptism is a sign or token of salvation or deliv- 
erance. 

Infants must be saved or delivered from their 
depraved nature, through the merits of the blood of 
Christ, or they have no Savior; 

Therefore infants are entitled to baptism,, the sign 
or token of salvation or deliverance. 

Q. 6. Can you here, from the nature of things, 
prove that infant Baptism is commanded? 

A. Readily: — 

1. Christ commanded the Apostles that those in a 
state of moral fitness must be baptized; (Math, xxviii: 
19, 20.) [Those at Cornelius' house were morally 
lit; therefore St. Peter baptized them.] 

Infants are in a state of moral fitness; (Markx: 14;) 

Therefore Christ commanded that infants must be 
baptized. 

.2. Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize his 
subjects; 

Infants are his subjects; 

Therefore Christ must have commanded that infants 
must be baptized. 

3. Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize 
those who were to be separated, set apart from the 
world; 

Infants are to be separated, set apart for the ser- 
vice of God; (Eph. vi: 4.) 

Therefore Christ commanded that infants must be 
baptized. 

4. Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize sub- 
jects of faith, or such as were believed to be morally 
fit for the kingdom of God; 



140 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

Infants are subjects of faith, in the hearts of be- 
lievers; 

Therefore Christ commanded that infants must be 
baptized. 

5. Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize such 
as were to be saved or delivered from the result 
of sin; 

Infants are to be saved or delivered from their de- 
praved nature, the result of Adam's transgression; 

Therefore Christ commanded that infants must be 
baptized, as a sign or token of their salvation or de- 
liverance. 

Q. 7. What other facts do we learn from 1 Cor. i: 
1 — 3, in connection with 1 Pet, iii: 20 — 23 ? 

A. As the two cases are of a similar nature, we 
learn on the subject of Christian baptism, from St. 
Paul's comparison, just what St. Peter tells us from 
his; that it was"77ie like figure, whereunto even 
baptism doth also now save us;" for the simile of the 
one may be as justly termed 'the like figure' as the 
other. If those baptisms, then, at the Red Sea, and 
those connected with the Ark, were 'the like figure,' 
through water y the type, [those baptisms,] to the 
antitype, [Christian baptism,] i. e. were an exact 
resemblance to, or image of Christian Baptism, it of 
course follows, that we have based our arguments 
upon unequivocal, undeniable evidence, even upon 
such testimony as was given by two of the most 
noble witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Note... May it not be forgotten, that the writer, in the 
original of this passage, has not used oikos. fuviily, as in I 
Cor. i: 16, but oikia, household, because of an increase of at 
least one individual, Rom. xvi: 5, aud that "Epenetus/' and 
perhaps others, with probably only one or more of the elder 
children, by this time, were those who had "addicted them- 
selves to the ministry of the saints." 



SECTION III. 



THEIR NATURE. AND USE STILL FURTHER ILLUSTRATED, 



Q. 1. What is Christian Baptism? 

A. According to the apostolic commission (Math . 
xxviii: 19, 20,) as we are required to be baptized in 
the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, it is 
not only a sign or token, a seal of what we have al- 
ready seen, but in connection with all the above, is— 

1. A sign or token of the love of God the Father; 
2. A sign or token of the efficacy of Christ's atone- 
ment; 3. A sign or token of the Holy Spirit's effects 
and influence. 

Q. 2. How will you make all this appear ? 

A. Thus:— 

1. Baptism, upon the principles of moral fitness, 
is a sign or token whereby God acknowledges and 
separates his subjects; 

Nothing but the love of God could have prompted 
him to acknowledge and separate them; 

Therefore, as they are all commanded to be bap- 
tized in the name of God the Father, baptism is a sign 
or token of the love of God the Father, exercised to- 
wards them. 

2. Baptism, upon the principles of moral fitness, 
is a sign or token whereby God acknowledges and 
separates his subjects; 

It is certain, all such subjects are to be saved or 
delivered through the efficacy of the blood of the 
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 

Therefore, as they are all commanded to be bap- 
tized in the name of the Son, baptism is a sign or 

Ml 



142 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

token of the efficacy of the blood of Jesus Christ, his 
Son. 

3. Baptism, upon the principles of moral fitness, 
is a sign or token whereby God acknowledges and 
separates his subjects; 

It is certain that the change in adults, to- consti- 
tute them morally fit, and the completion of the 
change of heart in all his subjects, is accomplished 
through the effects and influence of the Holy Ghost; 

Therefere, as they are all commanded to be bap- 
tized in the name of the Holy Ghost, baptism is a 
sign or token of that entire change, the effects and 
influence of the Holy Ghost. 

This, then, proves, that Christian baptism is also, 
as asserted above — 1. A sign or token of the love of 
God the Father; 2. A sign or token of the efficacy of 
Christ's atonement; 3. A sign or token of the Holy 
Spirit's effects and influence. 

Q. 3. What have you accomplished by all this t 

A. This:— 

1. Little children have an equal right with coven- 
anted adults, to the love of God the Father; 

Baptism is a sign or token of the love of God the 
Father; 

Therefore little children have an equal right with 
adults, to be baptized in the name of God the 
Father. 

2. Little children have an equal right with coven- 
anted adults, to the efficacy of Christ's atonement; 

Baptism is a sign or token of the efficacy of 
Christ's atonement; 

Therefore, little children have an equal right with 
adults, to be baptized in the name of the Son. 



Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 143 

3. Little children have an equal right with coven- 
anted adults, to the Holy Spirit's effects and influ- 
ence'; 

Baptism is a sign or token of the Holy Spirit's ef- 
fects and influence; [do little children stand in need 
of the Holy Spirit's effects and influence ? Certainly, 
if spared, as much as converted adults. Should they 
die, at death, he, because of Christ's atonement, 
slays the depravity, and renders the nature of the 
soul congenial to the holy and happy spirits in 
Heaven.] 

Therefore, little children have an equal right with 
adults, to be baptized in the name of the Holy Ghost. 

Q. 4. Can you give a more full and explicit ex- 
planation of the sign or token of the love of the 
Father, of the efficacy of Christ's atonement, and of 
the effects and influence of the Holy Spirit, set forth 
in Christian baptism ? 

A. Readily: — 1. As water, the sign or token in 
Christian baptism, can be applied to our bodies, so 
we are taught, in the administration of this rite, that 
the love of God our Father can be applied to our 
souls, and therefore we are to be baptized in the name 
of the Father. 

2. As water, the sign or token in Christian baptism, 
has the power, contains an efficacy, [this is exhibited 
by a single drop, as well as by an ocean in quantity,] 
to cleanse our external man from filth or pollution, 
in the administration of this rite; that there is an ef- 
ficacy in the shed blood of the Son of God to cleanse 

our souls from all sin; and therefore we are to be 
baptized in the name of the Son. 

3. As water, the sign or token in Christian bap- 



144 CHISRTIAN BAPTISM.. Part 2,.. 

tism, has or contains the principle to soften, change 
and refresh, so we are taught, in the administration 
of this rite, that it is the part and office of the Holy 
Spirit, to soften, change and refresh our hearts, or the 
attributes of our soulsj and therefore we are to be 
baptized in the name of the Holy Ghost. 

Q. 5. What other light is here thrown on this 
subject? 

A. This: — 1. That God, through his love, as the 
origin and source of mercy to man, has become, 
through Christ his Son, our Father; 2. Christ, through 
his sufferings and death, our Savior; 3. The Holy 
Spirit, because of the efficacy of Christ's shedbloodr 
through his effects and influence, our Sanctifier. — 
Hence water, in the administration of Christian bap- 
tism, is also — 1. A sign or token that God is our 
Father; therefore we are baptized in the name of the 
Father; — 2. A sign or token that Christ is our Sa- 
vior; therefore we are baptized in the name of the 
Son; — 3. A sign or token that the Holy Spirit is our 
Sanctifier; therefore we are baptized in the name of 
the Holy Ghost. 

Q. 6. What, by this time, are your decisions ou 
this subject ? 

A. A conscientious, immovable conviction, that 
would challenge the world to deny that Chris- 
tian Baptism does not come in room of Circumcis- 
ion, when properly and fairly investigated and com- 
pared; that the sign or. token and seal of each, are 
not, in many particulars, substantially the same; and 
then, that our little bhildren have not a right to the 
ordinance, the sign or token of which declares, that 
God ie their Father, Christ4heir Savior, and the Holrr 



Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 145 

Ghost their Sanctifier; which also answers as the 
seal of the righteousness of faith; that these things, 
amongst others connected with its nature, are not 
bo: and that they stand not, in consequence of all 
this, in covenanted relation with God, as well as 
adults. 



SECTION IV. 



THEIR PASSIVE CHARACTER, UNDER THE ADMINISTRA* 
TI0N OF THE RITE, EXHIBITED AND DEFINED. 



Q. 1. What is Christian Baptism? 

A. A profession, with which is connected faith) 
confession, supplication and dedication. 

Q. 2. In what does the profession consist ? 

A. Not in the answers given to the questions put 
to the subjects or sponsors — 'these are only explana^ 
tory of the thing itself— J but in the act of coming for* 
ward, in order to have the ordinance administered. 

1. Faith is here intimately connected. The act 
epeaks thus:—"/ declare my belief in the Sacred 
Scriptures, and that I intend to live accordingly. I 
have left the world, and have come out on the side 
of God, the Church, and Heaven." It is in sub* 
stance all the same, in the awakened, converted and 
sponsors. 

2. Confession. Under the administration of this 
ordinance, a rite so solemn, 1, the awakened should 
confess their sins to God; 2, the converted their un- 
worthiness, &c, of having the privilege of being 
thus recognized, as the children of God; 3> the spon- 
sors the weakness of human ability, &c. 



1-46 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Pari 2. 

3. Supplication. 1. The awakened should pray 
God the Father to apply his love and mercy to their 
souls, even as sensibly as water can be applied to their 
bodies; God the Son, to cleanse, through the effica- 
cy of his shed blood, their souls from all sin, as wa- 
ter can cleanse their external man from filth and pol- 
lution; God, the HoJy Ghost, to descend with the 
application of the water, in order to soften still 
more, thoroughly change, and completely refresh 
their hearts, as water cau externally soften, change 
and refresh. 2. The converted pray the additional 
grace of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, to be 
continually communicated to their souls, and to be 
as sensibly felt and realized, as the result of the ap- 
plication of the water in the administration of this 
ordinance. 3. The sponsors pray God, the Father, 
Son and Holy Spirit to smile propitiously upon the 
little immortal, to love it freely , to cleanse it spiritu- 
ally and to sanctify it wholly ; and that, should it be 
spared, then, to deliver and save it from sin and 
folly, and qualify it for the cause of God and the en- 
joyments of Heaven. Lord help and give wisdom and 
grqce to do our duty towards it ! 
g * 4. Dedication. t. Adults should, according to 
the requisitions of Heaven, from that moment devote 
their lives, talents, and substance to the service of 
God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and to the 
welfare of immortal souls. 2. The sponsors give the 
child, through faith, over to the mercies of the Tri- 
une God; and, as soon as it is capable of moral action, 
put it under moral restraint to serve God, by teach- 
ing it to observe the legislation of the Lord Jesus. 
Christ 



Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 147 

Q. 3. What does Christian Baptism forbid ? 

A. As it, among other things, symbolically, by 
the use of water,* sets forth a cleansing, it forever 
forbids the soul from becoming again polluted with 
sin — the Christian character and church of ©od,-from 
being stained and disgraced,- through^ the' gratifying 
subtlety of "the prince of tire power of the air f the 
spirit that now worketh in the children of disobe- 
dience.?' (Eph.-iiJ 2.) 

Q. 4. What, then, is the expressive sum and 
substance of Christian Baptism ? 

A. It is symbolically expressive of the visible and 
invisible spiritual relation, and of the covenanted en- 
gagements, existing between the People of God and 
God and his People. Hence, Christian baptism is 
properly termed a sacrament, a covenant, a means T 
and a seal of grace. 



SECTION V. 



PROMISCUOUS MATTER. 



Q. 1. Are not innocent heathen children, as welP 
as those of Christian parents, in a state of moral fit- 
ness for the kingdom of Heaven ? 

A. They certainly are. 

Q. 2. Why then do not our missionaries baptize 
such, independently of the willingness of their hea- 
then parents ? 

A. Because of the existing distinguishing prin- 
eiples and uiifitness of things. 

Q. 3. In what do these consist? 

A. In this:. — As they have not been, born under 



148 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, Part2< 

gospel light, they have no gospel sponsors or guar- 
dians, and consequently no gospel ordinance ; so 
that neither can be brought under moral obligation, 
the One to teach and the other to receive and obey 
the instructions to be communicated; and therefore 
they must of necessity be left to the light of nature* 
until they can be christianized. 

Q. 4. Why notj however, baptize the children of 
Unbelievers, born and living under gospel light and 
privileges? 

A. From the fact that this right has never yet, 
under the grace of God* been permitted to bring 
them to a state af moral fitness, to act under moral 
obligation* either for the welfare of themselves or 
their children; and thus they* too* have no gospel 
sponsors, and consequently are defrauded out of a 
gospel ordinance. 

Q. 5. Is it not a sin in parents* living under gos- 
pel light, to neglect the duty of having their chil- 1 
dren baptized ? 

A. As innocent children are morally Jit, have all 
an interest in the love of God the Father, the merits 
of Christ's blood, and the effects and influence of 
the Holy Ghost* all symbolically set forth in Christian 
baptism, it is certainly a sin to neglect this duty. 
The act of neglect speaks in this wise: — We care 
nothing about this matter. It says, too, we are not 
willing to come or be brought under moral obliga- 
tion, nor to put our children under moral restraint. 

Q. 6. What might be the reason that some, who 
once believed in Infant Baptism, were so readily led 
to neglect and reject this doctrine ? ^ 

A. Among the many that might be given, one of 
the most prominent is, that some parents* after hav 



Chap. 6. CRRISTIAN BAPTISM. 149 

ing grown cold, or perhaps withal wicked, with six 
or eight unbaptized children, in this state, having be- 
come, under certain circumstances, suddenly agita- 
ted and alarmed on account of their sins and neglect, 
and yet ashamed to have them baptized; there at the 
same time, perhaps, came one or more, exclaiming, 
"water! — water!"—- so, in order to pacify con- 
science, they were immersed, as all now well and 
right, and their children left to choose for themselves 
— if it should be Universalism, Infidelity, or any 
thing else, but the doctrines which inculcate Infant 
Baptism. The design, however, of the expression, 
"to choose for themselves," is to influence others to 
let their children grow up unbaptized, untaught, 
that a favorable opportunity may once be had to 
proselyte upon their credulity, through their igno- 
rance. 

Q. 7. Can any such wicked parents excuse them- 
selves, on the ground of unfitness, to act as spon- 
sors? 

A. By no means. They might all have been 
pious, long before this, and if once they were, might 
be so yet, had they attended to the cause of God and 
their own souls. 

Q. 8. Is it right to baptize the children of the 
wicked ? 

A. It is not only sinful to baptize them, but also 
such adult persons, as neither intend to live under 
moral restraint, and thus tfyey, if baptism were ad- 
ministered, would be permitted to make a false pro- 
fession, and give the lie to both God and man, 

Q. 9. Is Christian Baptism valid, if administered 
under such a state of things ? 

A. Let the circumstances aDd state of heart be 



250 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

what they may, so that it is administered by an au- 
thorized person, according to the apostolic commis- 
sion, (Math, xxviii: 19.) the baptism of such is still 
valid. 4 

Q. 10. Is it, however, baptism, if one person be 
baptized in the name of the Father, another in the 
name of the Son, and a third in the name of the Holy 
Spirit ? 

A. It is not, unless completed by the further use 
of the words of the institution, in connection with 
-he use of water. For instance, the first, if only 
having been baptized in the name of the Father, is 
yet to be baptized in the name of the Son and Holy 
.Spirit; the second, having been baptized in the name 
of the Son, is yet to be baptized in the name of the 
Father and Holy Spirit; the third, having been bapr 
tized in the name of the Holy Spirit, is yet to be bap- 
tized in the name of the Father and Son. 

Q. 11. Who are the properly authorized to ad- 
minister Christian baptism ? 

A. Not those who assume the authority, but such 
-as have been divinely called, qualified and authorized 
to officiate in the Christian ministry. 

Q. 12. Is, howover, Christian baptism valid when 
administered by a wicked, unconverted administra- 
tor ? 

A. It is, provided the authority of the administra- 
tor has originated in, and come from a proper, pious 
ministerial source. The validity of the rite is then 
based in the source of its authority, and not in the 
individual, officiating act of the ungodly administra- 
tor. Math, xxiii: 2 — 4. Otherwise, or upon all other 
grounds, the administration of this ordinance is ren^ 
tiered a non-validity. 



Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 151 

Q. 13. Where is the proper place to have this 
rite administered ? 

A. If sickness, or other unavoidable circumstan- 
ces, do not conflict, it should always be done in the 
church, in the presence of the congregation. It 
makes the exercise, (which may consist of some scrip- 
tural remarks,) more solemn and impressive, and has 
a tendency to instruct and affect the audience. 

Q. 14. Who should stand as sponsors for children 
when baptized ? 

A. Parents; and when children are orphans, their 
guardians; because sueh have the right of control 
over them, and can only, in connection with the 
church, "bring them up in the nurture and admoni- 
tion of the Lord." (Eph. vi: 4.) 

Q. 15. When, one of the parents is pious, and 
the other ungodly, are the children to be baptized f 
and if so, who is to act as sponsor ? 

A. They are to be baptized, and that parent who 
is pious, is to act as sponsor; because qualified, not 
only to make a scriptural profession, under the act 
of administration, but for the duty, in being willing' 
and able, by the grace of God, to Jill the station, as 
a Christian parent and disciple of Christ. (Eph. vi: 4.) 

Q. 16. Why not that others, besides parents and 
guardians, be permitted, as formerly, to act as spon- 
sors ? 

A. As this practice had its origin in Europe, 
where and when church members would not proba- 
bly change their location during life, it was deemed 
proper, on account of the persecutions of the Refor- 
mation, and of. otherwise, the loss of the life of pa- 
rents, to have sponsors especially bound with the 



152 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2. 

church, to see then to the religious education of such 
children. But as emigration is so prevalent, and the 
circumstances so different, the practice has been re- 
jected. Again, as already seen, this duty, in the 
failure of sponsors, under all circumstances, devolves 
on the church; and however remiss in this she may 
have been, we have no right to place it then, more 
especially on some of her members than on others. 
Hence the necessity of Sabbath-schools, catechetical 
instruction, &c. 

Q. 17. Who are to attend to the religious educa- 
tion of such baptized children that have been left as 
orphans, in the hands of the irreligious ? 

A. Pious relatives or friends, and the church at 
large. 

Q. 18. Are those that were baptized in infancy 
to be brought under the discipline of the church, 
previously to their making a public profession ? 

A. They are to be dealt with just as others who 
have made a public profession. They are to be 
rectified, when under erroneous views; to be sought 
and set right, when gone astray in sin, and to be 
taught the necessity of a reformation, and urged to 
duty, from the fact that they are members of the 
church, can only be made happy, alone saved, by 
complying with the doctrines of the Holy Scriptures. 
Should, however, all this prove ineffectual, they 
should then finally be excommunicated. 

Q. 19. If a person be dissatisfied with infant bap- 
tism, administered under proper ministerial authori- 
ty and scriptural form, is it sinful for such to be bap- 
tized a second time ? 

A. As the Apostles never baptized a second time, 
in the name of the Holy Trinity, we have no exam- 



Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 153 

pie to that effect. Such baptisms, then, are unscrip- 
titral, and hence sinful, as it is taking the name of 
God in vain. 

Q. 20. But did not St. Paul, (Acts xix: 3—6,) bap- 
tize a second time certain Disciples, with whom he 
met at Ephesus? 

A. Those had not been previously baptized ac- 
cording to the apostolic commission, (Math, xxviii: 
19,20,) "but unto John's baptism:'' [v. 3-1 This, 
then, does not only decide that John did not bap- 
tize in the name of the Trinity, [v. 2,] but that if a 
person be baptized in other words, than those con- 
tained in the apostolic commission, that his baptism 
is not valid. 

Q. 21. How does it come that those Disciples 
were baptized a second time, whilst (Acts xviii: 25) 
Apollos, who must also have been baptized by John's 
baptism, was not? 

A. The latter must have had received, in a mi- 
raculous way, the Holy Ghost, which rendered, at 
that early day, the baptism of John valid, as must 
have been the case with the Apostles, (St. Paul ex- 
cepted,) on the day of Pentecost, who could not 
have been baptized in the name of the Trinity, as 
there were as yet none commissioned, and hence no 
administrators but themselves, whilst the former had 
not been made the recipients of the Holy Spirit. — 
Apollos must have also better understood the plan 
of salvation, than the Disciples at Ephesus, or there 
could not have been this distinction in the Holy 
Spirit's influence. 

Q. 22. What was then the true state of things 
at the close of the Old dispensation ? 

[G2] 



t!54 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2., 

A. This: Those who had not received the 
Holy Ghost, and yet had (Acts xix: 1 — 7 or had not 
(viii: 15 — 18) been baptized with John's baptism, 
and those that then were baptized with the Holy 
Spirit, (x: 44, &c.,) and not with water, all, with their 
children, came under the apostolic commission, and 
were baptized with water. 

Q. 23. But how are adults to know, when said to 
have been baptized in infancy, whether they really 
were or were not? 

A. We ask, how are they to know many other 
things ? Whoever saw and conversed with Abra- 
ham and the rest of the Patriarchs, the Prophets, 
the Lord Jesus, and the Apostles ? If we reject all, 
but that with which we are personally acquainted, 
we may as well turn Infidels at once. The truth of 
the matter, however, is, that if we have as good a 
heart and as strong a faith as St. Paul, we may know 
it from the same source of reference as he, that he 
was circumcised the eighth day. (Phil, iii: 5.) — ■ 
Should, however, such evidence not be sufficient, 
we doubt very much whether such could credit their 
parents, that they were their children !! Moreover 
there are church records of such things. 

Q. 2 4. Is it scriptural to partake of the Lord's 
Supper before being baptized ! 

A. As the Gospel Covenant, under the Old dis- 
pensation, (Ex. xii: 48; Num. ix: 14) did not permit of 
partaking of the Passover until -circumcised, as 
Christian Baptism, to such would be as Circumcis- 
ion, initiatory; and as we have nothing, either di- 
rectly or indirectly, under the New dispensation, not 
■evcu the least shadow of an example, but the rcvirsc t 



e/ia/7.6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 155 

(Acts ii: 41 — 43,) that the Lord's Supper did follow 
Baptism, it of course is then unscriptural. 

Q. 25. Did not, however, the Disciples partake 
of the Lord's Supper, at its institution, before bap- 
tized ? 

A. That was Old Testament times. Moreover., 
Christian Baptism was not yet instituted. Hence a 
baptism, or purification, administered by. John., was 
all-sufficient. Again, the nature of things was.^uch, 
that the Sacrifices (Gen.iii: 21; iv; 3-^6) were insti- 
tuted before Circumcision, (Gen: xvii;-) therefore, 
also, for the sake of uniformity and consistency, the 
Lord's Supper (Math, xxvi: 26— ?29) had necessarily 
to be instituted before Water Baptism, (Math, xxviii: 
19, &c..) even under the Old, though a New Testa- 
ment ordinance. 



SECTION VI. 



INFANT COMMUNION A GRAND DIFFICULTY 

REMOVED. 



Q. 1. But if little children are proper subjects 
for Baptism, why not for Communion? 

A. Because apostolic practice never taught on 
the subject of Communion, what it has on the sub- 
ject of Baptism. We find no specimen, no example, 
on record — not even the least intimation — whera 
the communion, on the faith of parents, like bap- 
tism, (Acts xvi; 13 — 16,23 — 35,) was extended to 
whole families. Moreover, in all the religious 
feasts among the Jews, although their children were 
.'Ceremonially set apart, (Gen. xvifc 7; xxi: 4j Luke ii: 



156 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2, 

21 — 25,) have parents ever acted for their children. 

Q. 2. Why then were the children, as well as 
the adults, while Israel was in the wilderness, per- 
mitted to eat and drink the same spiritual meat and 
drink, (1 Cor. x: 3 — 5,) which is admitted by all to- 
have been typical of the Lord's Supper ? 

A. This will appear from an examination of facts 
connected with this subject. Spiritual meat and 
drink, mean here typical meat and drink. This is 
clear, from Rev. xi: 8, "Which spiritually [i. e. 
typically] is called Sodom and Egypt." 

1. The manna, to which reference is had in this 
passage, was a type, firstly, of the (< true doctrines" 
of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is evident, "from 
Ps. lxxviii: 25, where the manna is called ang-els' 

food;" secondly, of Christ and his Jlesh; then con- 
sequently of the Lord's Supper. John vi: 32, Christ 
"calls himself 'the true bread from heaven;' v. 35, 
'the bread of life.' » 

2. "The waters — from the rock of Horeb, (Ex. 
xvii: 5 — 7,) were a type of the revelations — made to 
the world by Christ and the Apostles; therefore 
Christ says, John vii: 37, i If any man thirst, let him 
come unto me and drink.' " Again, in order to make 
this matter still plainer, does not the Savior, at the 
very commencement of his ministry, say, Math, v: 6, 
"Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righ- 
teousness: for they shall be filled ? " Then there is 

food and drink found in this righteousness. Are 
not the revelations he gave us a well of salvation, 
and are not the doctrines thus developed food for 
the soul? Could he not, then, whatever else he may 
have intended by this passage, with propriety have 



Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 157 

meant these revelations and these doctrines? More- 
over, had he not a manifest allusion to the waters of 
Horeb and the manna of the wilderness, although 
other facts are embraced in the expressions, when 
he said, John vii: 37, 'If any man thirst, let him 
come unto me and drink ? ' and when he calls him- 
self, John vi: 32, 'the true bread from heaven V and 
v. 35, 'the bread of life V Can this be denied ? — ■ 
Hence we see, as little children were partakers of 
the type, [all ate and drank the same spiritual or typi* 
cat meat and drink,] so they are to be of the antitype, 
[the revelations and doctrines, Eph. vi : 4, and the oth- 
er mercies, purchased hy the Son of God, Mark x: 13 
-—17.] Hence, firstly, "Milk" Heb. v: 13, [the 
revelations and doctrines,] is necessary; and second- 
ly, as ability and qualifications are developed, "r7ie 
strong- meat," Heb. v: 14, [the Lord's Supper.]-— 
Thus Christ himself instructed and discipled for the 
service of God. (Mark iv: 33.) Are not children 
to be taught? Are they not also required to obey 
the gospel ? but only according to capacity, &c. To 
set this matter, then, forever at rest, let us remem- 
, ber, that the Apostles never administered the com- 
munion to any but adults; that St. Paul makes it a 
qualification, and requires in the subject for com- 
munion, a capacity and an ability of "discerning 
the Lord's body," (1 Cor. xi: 12,) and of discrimina- 
ting the symbols, "from common bread and wine, 
for the nourishment of life." So soon, then, as our 
children reach this apostolic description, and no 
sooner, are they subjects for communion. It does 
not then necessarily follow, that if they are fit sub- 
jects for baptism, they must be for communion; 
and if not for communion, that they cannot, dare not 



158 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 2, 

be for baptism. The testimony, then, is conclusive, 
that this passage does not conflict with infant haptism 
anymore, than it" a little innocent child cannot eat 
meat, that therefore, it dare not have milk, but must 
be starved to death!! — yet reason — argument — on 
the system of Immersion, necessarily dev elope this 
conclusion!!! 

Q. 3. What testimony on this subject is derived 
from the church being termed the ''kingdom of 
God?" 

A. This*. That in every kingdom there is a 
"gradation of capacity for the enjoyments" of priv- 
ileges. This depends upon the age, talents, &c, 
of its subjects. It does not, then, necessarily fol- 
low, because children belong to this kingdom, that 
therefore they must, "irrespective of age, condition 
or qualification," be immediately entitled to all its 
privileges, or else deprived of them all. This is 
not the state of things in a well-regulated kingdom. 
Can it be said that God even lacked wisdom in the 
government of his kingdom ? Yet did he not, by cir- 
cumcision, cause the Jewish children to be ceremo- 
nially set apart for his service? Could they, how- 
ever, attend to all that was required of adults ? Could 
they immediately attend to and appreciate the tem- 
ple services of the three great annual festivals at 
Jerusalem ? Or shall we here say, they had no 
right to circumcision, and that God erred? Or, to 
get more effectually out of the difficulty, affirm, con- 
trary to the plainest declarations of the Word of 
God, that it embraced nothing but physical things, 
nothing spiritual? [Sec Rom. ii: 29; Deut. *: L6j 
xxx: G; Jer. iv: 4; Phil.iii: 3; Col. ii: 11.] Again, is 



<Ckap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. I'M 

it not admitted, that the "Lord's Supper comes in 
•room of the Passover? and yet we find the Jewish 
children were not permitted to partake of that sol- 
emn festival, until the fixed age of twelve; Luke ii: 
41 — 43;) and not then, till previously instructed, cer- 
emonially clean, and of sufficient discretion. Once 
more, and we are done forever; so that here we will 
let the thing rest: This is, we are told, (Math, xxi: 
43,) "The kingdom of God" that was taken away 
from the Jews, as a people, "and given to a nation 
bringing forth the fruits thereof." Thus, then, we 
see, irrespective of the furnace of contempt, fired by 
the disordered intellects of men, and the proselyting 
systems of accommodation, of party spirit, and heated 
^imagination; nohuith standing all, infant baptism, 
rolling forth as a metal purer than gold seven times 
tried in the fire, reflecting its image upon every hon- 
est heart, by the refining principles of the Sacred 
.Pages of Inspiration, 



PART Iir. — THE MODE. 



CHAPTER! 



THE PRIMARY MEANING OF WORDS THE DEFINI- 
TION OF BAPTIZE, WASH, ETC. 



Q. 1. Have the words of a language more than 
one signification ? 

A. They have not only almost all several, and 
some numerous, but even different shades of signifi- 
cation, as well as primary and secondary meanings. 

Q. 2. How do we arrive at the primary meaning of 
a word ? 

A. By ascertaining the general, uniform, and un- 
exceptional sense attached to it by an author, as he 
may have applied it in conveying a certain fact or 
truth, the sense being always the same on the same 
subject, although used by himself and others in oth- 
er compositions, and on other subjects, as only con- 
veying a secondary meaning. When we have seve- 
ral writers using a word, in conveying the same 
sense on the same subject, we have the more and 
additional testimony of that sense being its primary 
meaning. 

Q. 3. How are we to come at the primary sense 
of the word Baptize, in order to settle its significa- 
tion, as used in the ordinance of Christian Bap- 
tism ? 

A. This can only be done by referring to the 
types, shadows, Mosaic ritual, and other scriptural 
facts expressive of the ordinance, and by strictly ad- 
hering to the application of the word baptize, as 

160 



Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 161 

found used in or in reference to Christian Baptism 
itself, and by a minute examination of the nature of 
things and circumstances connected with the admin- 
istration of the rite. By varying from these facts, 
some of the most candid, pious, and learned, have 
run into error. 

Q. 4. Should we not, however, take the word 
baptize, as used elsewhere in the Scriptures and 
New Testament, in order to settle its meaning, in 
its use in the ordinance of Christian Baptism ? 

A. This cannot be done. Different subjects give 
different primary meanings and shades of significa- 
tion to the same word. There can then on this, and 
no other subject, any dependence be put on the 
sense of the word baptize, or any other thus used. 
Moreover, as we only need the definition of the word 
baptize, as used in settling the mode or action of the 
administration of the rite of Christian Baptism, 
therefore we only can, and alone dare, refer to its 
application and sense, as there given. 

Q. 5. But is not the word Baptize purely Greek? 

A. No more so than hundreds of other words 
found in the English language. For example, atti- 
cize [Greek, attikidso,] scandalize, [Greek, skanda- 
lidso.] Again, does not every scholar know that 
our language is made up principally of foreign words; 
and if it be proper to introduce into it immersion, 
[immersio ,] submersion, [submersus,] &c, from the 
Latin, and call them English words, then it is equal- 
ly proper that the word baptize, [Greek, baptidso,~] 
as introduced into our language, should be consid- 
ered now purely English. 

Q. 6. Why did not the translators translate the 
word baptize ? 



162 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

A. We reply interrogatively. Why not other 
■words that some. suppose might have been transla- 
ted? as, for instance, (1 Cor. xvi: 22,) "anathema 
maranatha." However, the fact is this: they had 
wiser and sounder heads, and better hearts, than to 
venture on such a trial. 

Q. 7. But did not Martin Luther and other Re- 
formers, believe in immersion ? 

A. If Dr. Luther, as an honest man, believed in 
immersion, why then do not the German Scripture* 
bear on their face, instead of taufen, [baptize,] 
tunken, tauchen, or eintauchen , [dip?] Would he,, 
as an honest man and Christian, belfreve one thing 
and write another? As for the other reformers, 
we will leave them where they are; with this re- 
serve, that they were no immersionists, or they 
would have practiced immersion. 

Q. 8. Can you, however, furnish us, on this sub- 
ject, with a quotation from any of Luther's writings : 

A. We have one at hand, from his preface to the 
Gallations. After making several remarks, he says, 
"Thus do the Anabaptists teach, that baptism is 
is nothing except the person do believe." He con- 
tinues to reason, and then concludes the paragraph 
thus; "Who seeth not here, in the Anabaptists,. 
men not possessed then with devils, but even devils 
themselves possessed with worse devils." He re- 
sumes the subject thus: "The Papists, in like manner, 
until this day, do stand upon works and the worthi- 
ness of man, contrary to grace, and so [in words at 
least] do strongly assist their brethren, the Anabap- 
tists. For these foxes are tied together by the tails, 
Although by their heads they seem to be contrary. 



Chap. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 163 

For outwardly they pretend to be their great enemies, 
whereas inwardly, notwithstanding, they think, teach 
end defend, indeed, all one thing against our Saviour 
Christ, who is our only righteousness. " Luther 
then was no immersionist. 

Q. 9. But why did not the writers of the New 
Testament Greek use, instead ofbaptidso, [baptize,'] 
the words rantidso, [sprinkle ,J ekcheo, [pour?] 

A. Because neither of these words, nor, in fact, 
any others, in forming a sentence, by the possible 
combination of words, could, according to the nature 
of the ordinance, comparatively viewed with the ex- 
pressions of the descent of the Holy Ghost, and other 
facts connected with this rite, but the word baptize, 
so fully express the precise ideas the inspired writers 
intended to convey. 

Q. 10. But still, if the word baptize, in the ad- 
ministration of Christian baptism, means sprinkle or 
pour, should not such sentences, then, as the one in 
Math, iii: 6, admit of such as its substitute ? 

A. It does not necessarily follow that baptize 
•does not mean sprinkle or pour , when referring to 
the mode, should such sentences not admit of either, 
or only of one, as a substitute; because other synon- 
ymous words, in certain phrases, will also not always 
admit other words as substitutes, although also sy- 
nonymous. This is owing to certain shades of mean- 
ing found in some words and not in others, and in 
the nature of things. For instance, extinguish 
means to put out: extinguish and put out then are 
synonymous. We can say, The man must be put 
jout of the house; but have we good sense, or even a 
Aj>roperly constructed sentence, when we say, The 



164 CHISRTIAN BAPTISM. Pari 2. 

man must be extinguished of the house t Again we 
can say, Close the tune, but who can say shut the 
tune, and have sense ? 

Q. IK But can we not, in such sentences as re- 
fer to the administration of this ordinance, supply 
the place of baptize with the word immerse as a sub- 
stitute ? 

A. By no means. This will be made appear by 
taking another word better understood than the 
word immerse, and yet synonymous with it, and in 
some instances with baptize. For example take 
sinA:,andthe sentences, Mark i: 14: " John did sink 
in the wilderness, and preached the sinking of re- 
pentance for the remission of sins." Again, v. 8, 
"I indeed have sxmk you with water, but he [Je- 
sus] shall sink you with the Holy Ghost." 

Q. 12. But might not the passage be supplied 
with the word in, in connection with immerse ? 

A. Not at all. "I indeed have immersed you 
in water, but he shall immerse you in the Holy- 
Ghost." To have immersed in the Holy Ghost was 
never the case, never done. Take, however, here 
the translation and the word sprinkle, and you have 
sense— -fact. "I indeed have sprinkled you with 
water; but he shall sprinkle you with the Holy 
Ghost;" i. e. shall give, impart unto you all, a por- 
tion of the Holy Spirit, that it shall be said of ally 
"They were all filled with the Holy Ghost." (Acts 
ii: 4.) Thus, too, we see the propriety of the ex- 
pressions "pour," [v. 17,] "shed forth," [v. 33,] 
and "fell," [x: 44,] for the Holy Spirit not only 
thus fell in parts on each, but descended from one, 
and only one Source, until "they were &\\ filled J* 



Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 165 

&c. Is not all this in accordance with the idea of 
sprinkling? Again, there is testimony for the cor- 
rectness of sprinkle being thus substituted, that can- 
not be given for immersion. The word sprinkle, as 
used by Isaiah, lii: 15, "So shall he [Christ, v. 13 
— 15] sprinkle many nations." Whether this be 
taken to refer to the action of his blood being spill- 
ed, (1 Pet. i: 2,) his Spirit being shed forth, (Acts ii: 
33,) or the mode of administering Christian baptism, 
at this time, matters not. If to either of the former, 
baptism being emblematic , the substitute is not only 
good, scriptural, but the mode developed: and if to 
the latter, the action of the rite at once defined. 

Q. 13. But is it not said that baptize always sig- 
nifies to immerse, sink, plunge, overwhelm, fyc? 

A. It is; but the fallacy of this will appear by 
reference to 1 Cor. xii: 13: "By one spirit we are all 
baptized into one body, [the church,] whether Jew 
or Gentile." The meaning is certainly not that they 
were immersed, sunk, plunged, overwhelmed or dip- 
ped into the body or church. Again, Acts x: 48, 
"He commanded them to be baptized in the name 
of the Lord*" Rom. vi: 3, "So many of us as were 
baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his 
death." Surely none could have been immersed, 
sunk, plunged, overwhelmed, or dipped into the 
< name' and 'death' of Christ. Trial, too, here will 
test, that neither immerse, nor any one else of the 
definitions given to the word baptize, will answer in 
these sentences as a substitute. 

Q. 14. But if baptize does not always mean im- 
merse, sink, plunge, overwhelm, dip, &c, no more 
than that it should always mean sprinkle and pour, 



m CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part & 

may not still the former define the mode of Christian: 
Baptism, while the latter do not? 
A. Not at all: 

1. Immerse, sink, plunge and overwhelm, as defi- 
nitions of baptize, are alike defective. They give 
the act of putting under, but not of raising the sub- 
ject, when thus administered. The administrator, 
then, by raising the subject, goes further than either 
of these definitions warrant; and thus he violates the 
signification of these words as definitions of baptize. 
These words tell us one thing, and his act, in raising 
the subject, another. He thus goes beyond their 
limits. 

2. To dip will also not answer. They did not 
dip the Lord Jesus when interred— buried. If then 
this action of the administrator is to represent the 
burial and resurrection of the Savior, the subject dare 
not be dipped, and consequently cannot then be 
raised. 

3.. To color — dye — is also as absurd. Water has 
no such properties — cannot color. 

Q. 15. Are the words sprinkle and pour, as defi- 
nitions of the word. baptize, in defining the mode or 
action of Christian Baptism, subject to similar ob- 
jections? 

A. They are not. If they even fail in convey- 
ing the different shades of the meaning of the word 
baptize, as used in every instance when they have 
bearing on the ordinance, and therefore cannot at all 
times be properly used as substitutes: yet in the 
rite of water baptism, and all the spiritual baptisms 
of the New Testament, they give fully and complete- 
ly, the mode or action to have been an application oC 
the thing to the subject. 



Chap. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 167 

Q. 16. How will you prove this to be the only 
unexceptionable mode or action of administering 
water baptism ? 

A. By John defining the action of spiritual bap- 
tism in the same language that he defines the action 
of water baptism. He says, (Mark i: 8,) "I indeed 
baptize you with water; but he [Jesus] shall baptize 
you with the Holy Ghost. " Hence the only conclu- 
sion, that by what mode soever the one was perform- 
ed, the other was. If, then, spiritual baptism was 
performed by a descent, an application, water bap- 
tism was also. 

Q. 17. But how will you prove that the spiritual 
baptisms of the Lord Jesus, as the administrator, 
were a descent, an application ? 

A. 1. From the baptisms of little children, (Mark 
x: 16,) upon whom he laid his hands and blessed, by 
which a spiritual influence was imparted and con- 
veyed to them. 

2. From adult baptisms. We are told that the 
Holy Spirit (Acta ii: 17) had not only been poured 
out, [v. 33,] shed forth, and [x: 47,] received, but 
that [xi: 15 — 17] John's comparison between water 
and spiritual baptism was then verified, and hia 
predictions (Math, iii: 11; Acts ii: 1—5) literally 
fulfilled. Thus, then, an application of water to the- 
subject, as the action of Christian baptism, is not 
only developed and clearly taught, but John's mode 
also defined. 

Q. 18. But can you give a more full detail of facts 
as proof on this subject? 

A. Certainly. In Acts ii: 1 — 5 we have the ful- 
filment of John's prophecy, as contained in Math, iii: 
il, or it has never been fulfilled. Hence the "cloven. 



168 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Pari. 2 

tengues, like as of fire, that sat upon each of them." 
St. Peter informs us, Acts ii: 16—18, that it was also 
the fulfilment of what God had spoken by the Prophet 
Joel: "I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh. " A 
fulfilment of the Savior's language, (Acts i: 5, 8,) 
which he terms a baptism, the action of which he de- 
fined as having come upon the Apostles. In Acts 
ii: S3, we are told, all that then had been "seen and 
heard" had been "shed forth." In Acts x: 44, it is 
said, "the Holy Ghost fell on all them who heard the 
word." St. Peter, in repeating this fact, tells us 
that they [the Gentiles, v. 47,] had received the 
Holy Ghost as well as we," [Jews,] (Acts ii * 4, 17, 
33.) In Acts xi: 15 St. Peter, in speaking of the 
game fact, the spiritual initiation or grafting in of the 
Gentiles (Rom. xi: 17) among the pious Jews, as be- 
ing thus made the partakers with them, [who were 
not cut off,] "of the root and fatness of the olive" 
tree," contrasts, Acts xi: 16, as Christ himself, Acts 
i: 5, and John, Math, iii: 11, did, ail, all these spirit- 
ual baptisms with water baptism. Now, we ask, 
was there any resemblance between those spiritual 
babtisms and water baptism, upon the supposition 
that immersion was the mode or action of water 
baptism? and if so, what was it that influenced the 
Great Author of inspiration and these great witness- 
es, to have made the contrast ? This is unanswer- 
able. Consequently we have again the definition of 
baptized, as used in baptism, to mean nothing else 
than an application of water to the subject. Hence 
there cannot be a single example on record, in all 
the New Testament,, of all the baptisms [for they 
are all thus included by the contrast] which were 
administered by immersion r submersion, or by what* 



■Chap. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. TOP 

ever else you may be pleased to define the mode or 
action from the only and right thing itself. Thus 
then God has given us the definition of baptize, as 
used in the ordinance of Christian baptism, let men 
of whatever degree of erudition, giant-like talents, 
excellent creed-accommodators, height of of charity^ 
age or station, say what they may. Isa. viii: 20, 
"To the law and the testimony." God's mode of- 
administration is then our mode or action of admin- 
istration. 

Q. 19. But to be more particular still, what wfcs" 
this striking resemblance or' force of the contrast; 
like? 

A* Nothing else than the pouring out, coming 
upon, shedding forth, receiving and Jailing on as ex-' 
pressive of the mode or action of Jehn's baptism by 
a descent of the Holy Ghost, represented (Actsii: 3)-> 
by cloven tongues having rested on the heads of the 
disciples. 

Q. 20. With what other illustrations, in connec- 
tion with Circumcision, does this contrast with these 
spiritual baptisms furnish us ? 

A, With the above "five forms of expression'* 
by which their action is defined as having been 
" 'poured out, come upon, shed forth, received, 
fallen on.' >\ To illustrate this, Circumcision, as 
presented in Rom. ii: 28, 29, is of importance. This 
passage presents Circumcision as embracing a two- 
fold change— -that of the heart as real — >that of 
the flesh as only resembling it. So baptism. That 
of the Holy Ghost as the thing itself— that of the 
water as only representing it. Now, to represent 
athing, it should resemble it as nearly as possible: 



no CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, Part 3. 

hence, to make a figure of a man, it should be as 
"nearly in form of him as possible, and not in form 
af an ox or a horse." Water baptism, therefore, to 
be "digood figure to represent the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost must be" administered by being poured out, 
come upon, shed forth, received, fallen on the sub- 
ject; "and this is any thing but immersion." Thus, 
then, these expressions and baptize, when it defines 
the mode or action of water baptism, are synony- 
mous. It matters not, then, whether we sprinkle or 
♦ pour, so that the action is always an application. 

Q. 21. What testimony, for an application of 
water, as the correct mode of administering Christian 
baptism, may be based upon the validity of the Spir- 
itual baptisms of the New Testament ? 

A. This: If spiritual baptism administered by an 
application, is valid, then water baptism, adminis- 
tered by an application, is also valid; and if the mod-e 
of water baptism, by an application, is the produc- 
tion of a non-validity, then High Heaven, on account 
of the failure in the mode of administration, has also 
failed in the validity of all the spiritual baptisms 
found on record. This is the boasted wisdom, of 
men! — the doctrine of Immersion!! 

Q. 22. What additional evidence is derived, in 
favor of these arguments,. from John .iii: 5j where -it 
is said, "Except a man-beborn of water and of the 
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God !" 

A. Not only thafrthe -language, like that of John's, 
Mark i: 8, goes to dtfine themode of water baptism,, 
by referring to»spiriti!al baptism; and hence to the- 
process or mode;- [see Johniiii'G^— 9,1 but it excludes 
the idea of 'immersion,, because it is impossihie tc* 



Qhap. r. CHRISTIAN BAPTISE VW 

immerse, sink, plunge, &c., into the Spirit; [less, as 
some would have it, who make the New Testament 
the Spirit, that they should be able to immerse, sink, ■ 
&c., into that Word,] and that if we can be born of 
the Spirit by any application [as alreacfy seen,] then' 
we can also be born of tfe water by an txpplicution ; 
and if one be legitimacy, the other must also-; 'and if 
then water baptism, -by an« application, *be a legiti- 
mate birth, -then water baptism, by immersion,- rtMsS 
be an illegitimate one, for there istfieffbitt one scrip- 
tural process by which-either can be administered. 

Q£ 23J- But still how can, in water baptism, th-e 
greater be bormof the lesser ? 

A. This objection only goes to establish our ar- 
guments.. Were it necessary in the one, it must 
also of necessity be in the other. An individual is 
not put into the Spirit, in order to come out of the 
Spirit, to be born again, but he descends on him, in 
order to effect this change. Hence we cannot, to 
make the contrast good, be put all over into the wa- 
ter in order to come out of it, to be born of water, 
to effect a physical, a relative change. 

Q. 24. What light does the prediction in Ez. 
xxxvi: 25 — 28,. throw on this subject, when it is said, 
"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you — and I 
will put my spirit within yow," &c? 

A. As it refers. to> the 1 restoration of the Jews, 
under the gospel, and' as- it* embraces languague so 
peculiarly specific of facts^.like those that St. Paul 
(He! . x: 22) and Christ ^Johmiii; 5) uttered, they must 
be parallel passages, and hence it not only affords 
Tight, but positively establishes the fact under discus- 
aion. The former clause, 'Then will I sprinkle 
adean- water upon you.» defines., .with precision,, the 



m CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

mode or action of water baptism ; and the latter, 'I 
will put my spirit within you, 5 the result of the 
spiritual baptisms of the New Testament. (Acts ii: 
4.) If this then is to be the state of things at the re- 
storation of Israel, the application of the water to 
the snbject must now, and there is no other alterna- 
tive, be theory scriptural mode of administration 
Again, Deut. xxxii: 2 — 4, "My doctrines shall drop 
as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew t as the 
small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers 
upon the grass: because I will publish the name of 
the Lord." When ? We answerj especially under 
the New dispensation. Ps. lxxii: I— -20. Are not his 
'doctrines 5 and his 'speech' represented in the rite of 
the administration of Christian baptism, and then 
only by an application ? Does not this rite also, as 
a tangible sign, 'publish the name of the Lord?' Can 
this be denied 7 What then becomes of immer- 
sion? 

Q. 25. But does not the expression in John iii: 
5, to 'be born of water, as baptism is an act of man, 
conflict with John ii 3, where it is said, "Who 
were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, 
nor of the will of man, but of God?" 

A< Not at all; 'who weror born not of blood,' 
means not of a natural family descent, as the Jews, 
(Rom. ix: G,) from Abraham and Sarah: 'nor of the 
will of *the flesh,' of the disposition of the corrupt 
nature: 'nor of the will of man,' of the mental voli- 
tion: 'but of God,' of the Spirit of God, as the sole 
Author, under, however, the use of the means of 
grace. Water baptism is a means of grace: therefore 
if an act of man, still not excluded as a means. 

Qx 26. But may not Christ here, like in John viU 



Chap. 1, CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ITS 

38 — 40, as it was previous to the giving of the apos 
tolic commission, (Math, -xxviii: 19 &c.) have meant- - 
the Spirit when he spoke of water ?' 

A.- If we were informed in John iii: 5, as we are 
in John vii: 38— -40, that he really meant the Spirit, 
when he said, 'Except a man be born of water,;' but 
as water, in this passage, is not interpreted as there, 
"this spake he of the Spirit; 5 ' we therefore take the 
blessed Savior at his word, as really meaning water. 
We also know, we must be baptized with water and 
the Holy Spirit; and if the latter be termed a birth, 
why doubt the former being one also, when both 
elsewhere are expressed, previously, too, to the 
giving of the apostolic commission, by the word bap- 
tize. Could he not speak prospectively of the one 
as well as of the other ? The birth then of the one 
and that of the other are two distinct things.- .More- 
over, this passage, instead of conflicting with' facts, 
is directly to the point. That the' X.ord Jesus,, in 
John vii: 38 — 40, illustrated the spiritual baptisms, 
by a comparison between the nature -of the natural 
element, water, and those glorious manifestations, 
or the nature of the descent and effects of the Holy 
Spirit, cannot be denied, That he afterwards insti- 
tuted an ordinance (Math, xxviii: 19) that required 
the use of water in connection with the name of the 
Holy Ghosti, needs no argument. How then can 
it follow that there should be no contrast between 
the action of water and spiritual baptism? This 
cannot be. How dare, then, any say, that the 
.definition of baptize, as U6ed in defining the action 
of administration, in water baptism, does not mean 
an application ? Will not the language of Christ 
himself be taken? Again, to be baptized with the 



£74 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

Holy Spirit is termed an -"anointing;" (2 Cor. i: 21; 
fl John ii: 27,) and his effects, are said to be the re- 
sult of being "sealed." (Eph. i: 13; iv: 30.) Water 
baptism is a perfect portraiture, when administered 
by an application, of the action of the ^'unction" (1 
John ii: 20) thus communicated. [The action of im- 
mersion, however, cannot, because of its deficiency, 
be thus viewed;] so that the visible sign or token, 
[water,] through the action of administration in this 
rite, becomes not only the "seal — [a very singular 
one, however., to be dipped all over into water: as 
singular as to dip a letter all over into sealing-wax, 
to accomplish the act of sealing it] — of the right- 
eousness of faith," — [for the contrast must be 
complete,] — even the seal of that invisible seal or 
effect of the Holy Ghost upon the heart; but 
also that then there is nothing more natural than 
that action should correspond with action, and re- 
sult with result; and therefore as immersion, as an 
action of administration, cannot serve as a sign or 
token and seal in representing the action of commu- 
nication and the result of the Holy Spirit, submer- 
sion is out of the question. Moreover, if water, on 
some occasions, was taken to express the action 
and effects of the Holy Spirit, we see only the 
•more the wisdom and design of the Savior in se- 
lecting that element as a tangible emblematic sign 
ar token and seal of spiritual baptism; and then that 
the action or mode of water baptism must be an ap- 
plication to the subject. 

Q. 27. But what further testimony have we in the 
New Testament from the expression, ( clean water? 
as found in Ez. xxxvi: 25, that this prediction related 
to Christian baptism ? 



Chap. 1. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ttb 

A. From an equivalent or corresponding expres- 
sion found in Heb. x: 22, where we are informed or 
; the necessity of having "our bodies washed with pure 
water." 

Q. 28. But how will you prove that this expres- 
sion has reference to this ordinance ? 

A. From the fact that there is no religious service 
required of us in the New Testament that demands 
the use of water, but baptism. 

Q. 29. Is not, however, this expression, 'our bo- 
dies washed with pure water,' a serious objection to 
Christian baptism, when administered by a small 
quantity ? 

A. Not at alL If sprinkle, in Heb. x: 22; xii: 24, 
is synonymous with wash, in Rev. i: 5, in expressing 
the entire cleansing- of the soul, through the efficacy 
of the blood of Christ: then certainly, with equal pro- 
priety, is sprinkle, in Ez. xxxvi: 25, not only synon- 
ymous with wash, in Heb. x: 22, but a few drops., 
even a small quantity of water, in the administration 
of Christian baptism, can also as correctly, as scrip- 
turally, be termed a washing, and hence can properly 
and symbolically be viewed as expressive of a com- 
plete cleansing of the whole body. 

Q. 30. But still, how can a few drops of water, 
sprinkled on the head, represent the washing of the 
whole external part of the body? 

A. Just as readily and equally as naturally as that 
(Math, xxvi: 7 — 13) the pouring- of "precious oint- 
ment'* on the head of the blessed Redeemer should 
represent the annointing of his whole body. 

Q. 31. Js there any thing, when a subject is pre- 
sented for Christian baptism, connected with the 
circumstances of the spiritual baptisms, that point? 



T76 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3, 

out the proper part of the body to which the water 
should be applied ? 

A. There is, in Acts ii: 1 — 5. As the visible part 
of those spiritual baptisms was represented [v. 3] by 
a visible element, or 'cloven tongues like as of lire,' 
resting upon the heads of those candidates, as emble- 
matic of the effects and influence of the Holy Spirit; 
so also should the water, in Christian baptism, be 
applied to the head of the individual, as emblematic 
of the effects of the love and mercy of God, as de- 
scending; of the efficacy of the blood of Christ, as 
being applied; and of the effects and influence of the 
Holy Ghost, as coming' from on high. Moreover, 
water baptism, as an external, visible sign or token 
and seal of spiritual baptism, is, as scripture (Ez. ix: 
-*~5; 2 Cor. i: 22; Rev. vii: 3; ix: 4) informs us, to be 
worn on the forehead. 

Q. 32. What do we learn from this view of the 
proper scriptural mode or action of Christian bap- 
tism ? 

A. As all spiritual matters are vested in God, 
and come from him from above, and as water bap- 
tism is to represent spiritual baptism and spiritual 
things; and as we are* ahuuays thus passive when bap- 
tized with the Holy Spirit, so we are taught that wa- 
ter baptism should always be administered by an ap- 
plication, and that the subject for baptism should 
always, and that the element [water] should never 
be passive. 

Q. 33. How do you understand St. Paul to Titus, 
lii: 5 ? 

A. Just as we would the Savior, John iii: 5. Sf 
Paul says, "We are saved according to the. mercy of 



Chap. I. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 177 

God, by the washing of regeneration," [or by being 
born of water,] "and renewing of the Holy Ghost," 
[or by being born of the Spirit.] The former be- 
ing an external and visible birth or change, termed 
a births because it forms our visible relationship to 
the church-, makes us visibly brethren; and the latter 
an internal, invisible birth or change, termed also 
a birth, because it forms our invisible relationship to 
God, makes us his children, and as such makes us 
spiritually related to each other. Thus we see that 
these two births or changes, constitute properly but 
one genuine, scriptural change, or new relation. 

Q. 34. But what might be the reason that some 
of the translators of the Holy Scriptures understood 
the Greek word loutrou, in this passage, (Titus iii: 5) 
and the one in Eph. v: 26, to mean a bathing? 

A. The reason is this: the word means both; 
therefore they could readily differ from the English 
translators. However, that our conclusion for this' 
difference is correct, is clear, from the abundant ev- 
idence and undeniable testimony already given on 
this subject. 

Q. 35. But cannot the Greek word, loutrou, as 
used in Eph. v: 26 and Titus iii: 5, be made ap- 
pear from lousanti, in Rev. i: 5, to be synonymous, 
when we do positively know that errantismenoi, in 
Heb. x: 22, rantismou, in Heb. xii: 24, and lousanti, 
in Rev. i: 5, in expressing the efficacy of the blood 
of Christ, are used synonymously? 

A. Most certainly: because if errantism enoi aad 
rantismou, derived from rantidso, (sprinkle,) and 
lousanti, derived from louo, [wash,] of different de- 
rivations, are synonymous, in expressing the efficacy 
of the blood of the Savior in the complete and entire 

[H,2J 



178 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

cleansing of the soul of man from sin. (1 John i: 7.) 
Then certainly loutron, [derived also from louo, 
wash,] as symbolic [Acts xxii: 16, apolousai, "wash 
away,"] of this glorious efficacy in the administration 
of Christian baptism, and lousanti, as derivitives, 
[with apalousai] from louo, are also synonymous. 
But if loutron, in Eph. v : 26, and Titus iii: 5, must be 
translated, the former "with a bath of water and 
with the word," and the latter "through the bath of 
regeneration," in order to prove immersion, then 
lousanti [wash,~\ in Rev. i: 5, must necessarily be 
translated, who "bathed us from our sins in his'ow* 
blood;" and thus not only have a poorly constructed 
sentence, but bathed [lousanti] then, in Rev. i: 5» 
and errantismenoi, [sprinkle,] in Heb. x: 22 and xii: 
24, made synonymous, which is impossible — absurd. 
Q. 36. What then do you finally understand by 
sprinkle and pour, as terms, that are scripturally ex- 
pressive of the mode of administering Christian bap- 
tism ? » 

A. Nothing more or less than that these words 
define the proper scriptural mode of administration to 
be an application of water to the subject, whether 
sprinkled, poured or shed forth. 

Q. 37. Is not, however, a plunge more like a 
washing than an application of a few drops of water ? 

A. By no means; because neither can be proper- 
ly termed a literal washing. Would we, however, 
really wash the person, we would be necessitated 
to have him naked, so that we might rub and scrub 
him all over, to effect 6uch a washing or cleansing of 
the body. 

Q. 33. Would not a moistening of the body rep- 



Chap. I. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 179 

resent better the entire' purging of the soul, through 
the blood of Christ, than a partial wetting ? 

A. No; because it is not owing to the extent of 
the moisture that is the representation of this glorious 
effect, but the cleansing principle found in the wa- 
ter; so that the least particle can teach that fact better 
than an ocean in quantity. The former, a small 
quantity, makes the shed blood of the Lord Jesus 
Christ symbolically very effectual in its efficacy to 
cleanse; whilst the latter, a large quantity, would 
make it emblematically less effectual, and the more, 
stilLmore deficient, subtract from its effects, deprive 
God of honor; and hence unscriptural, and never 
taught nor practised by the Apostles. 



CHAPTER II. 



JOHN'S MINISTRY. 



SECTION I. 



John's Mode or Action, Christ's Baptism, 8fc, fyc. 



Q. 1. By what mode did John baptize ? 

A. This, the dispensation under which John ex- 
ercised his ministerial functions, and the nature of 
Christ's baptism, will, as already to a great extent 
seen, more fully develope. 

Q. 2. Under which dispensation, then, did John 
officiate ? 

A. The Old, (Math.xvii: 11,) or Christ would not 
have said, (Math, xi: 11, "Verily I say unto you— - 
there hath not risen n greater than John the Baptist, 



180 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of 
heaven, [the church under the New dispensation,] is 
greater than he." He then belonged to the Old, the 
former dispensation. ' Kingdom of Heaven' here, 
however, does not mean that the 'kingdom of heav- 
en' had never belonged to the Jews, or Christ could 
not also have said, 'Math, xxi: 43, "The kingdom of 
God shall be taken from you, [Jews,] and giv- 
en to a nation [Gentiles] bringing forth the fruits 
thereof." The true import of the phrase, 'he that 
is least in the kingdom of heaven,' is this: as it shall 
be exhibited with new externals, &c, and as we 
Gentiles have it, 'is greater than he.' John hims^^f 
bears testimony to the same effect, when he says, 
(Math, iii: 2, "Repent ye: for the kingdom of hea- 
ven is at hand." He did not, however, say that it 
then, [with new externals,] had really commenced. 
Q. 3. How could, however, John have officiated 
under the Old, when we are informed, Luke xvi: 16, 
"The law and the prophets were until John: since 
that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every 
man presseth into it?" 

A. The meaning is, 'the law and the prophets' 
(Math, xi: 13) "prophecied," i. e. spake and continued 
the sole, the only instructors, 'until John: since that 
time the kingdom of God,' as found under the Old 
dispensation, 'is preached;' i. e. the typical import 
of the law and the prophets is pointed out, (John i: 
23; Luke iii: 2— 7, 16—19 &c.,) as about being ful- 
filled; and thus 'the kingdom of heaven is at hand,' 
(Math, iii: 2; Luke x: 9,) when a reformation in ex- 
ternals will take place, (Actsvi: 14; Heb. ix,) the 
old pass away, (Heb. ix: 10,) new ones instituted, 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 181 

<Math. xxviii: 19 &c; 1 Cor. v: 7; Math, xxvi: 26—29,) 
and another and different ministry (Math, xxviii: 19, 
&c; Acts i: 8) required: for lo! the Messiah is here, 
(John i: 36,) therefore c every man presseth into it,' 
even as it then was and then existed. 

Q. 4. But what proof on this subject have we 
from Christ's advent or mission into the world ? 

A. This: It is expressly stated, Gal. iv: 4 — 6, 
that "God sent forth his Son — made under the law, 
to redeem them that were under the law," Then 
not only under the moral but ceremonial, fehe exter- 
nal religion of the Jews. If not, why was he cir- 
cumcised ? (Luke ii: 21.) Why presented to the 
Lord according to the law of purification ? (Luke ii : 
22 — 25.) Were not all males required to attend 
thrice a year before the Lord ? (Ex. xxiii: 14; Deut. 
xvi: 16 — 18. Was not Christ subject to this custom, 
when at twelve years he attended the Passover, or 
feast of unleavened bread, at Jerusalem ? (Luke 
ii: 41 — 43.) Did not Christ, even after his baptism, 
attend this feast, (Math, xxvi: 17 &c; Mark xiv:12 — 
27; Luke xxii: 7 — 21) as the law required? (Lev. 
xxiii: 5 — 7; Ex. xii: 1 — 21.) Did notthe Savior also, 
after his baptism, attend the feast of tabernacles, 
(John vii : 2 — 28,) as the law demanded ? (Lev. xxiii: 
34; Deut. xvi: 13.) Where is it recorded that he ne- 
glected a single requirement of the external part of 
the Jewish religion ? (Rom. xv: 8; Math, viii: 2 — 5; 
Luke xvii: 12 — 15; Lev. xiii: 2; xiv: 3 Sec.) More- 
over, did not John say, (John iii: 28 3 ) "I am sent 
before him?" Then did not John officiate under the 
Old dispensation? Again, does not St. Paul say, "I 
testify — to every man that is circumcised, that he is 



182 CHISRTIAN BAPTISM. . Part 3. 

a debtor to do the whole law?" (Gal. v: 3.) We 
surely will not deny that Christ — that John were cir- 
cumcised ? (Luke i: 59 — 64.) Then under the law 
— the moral — ceremonial — civil— we repeat it, under 
the Old dispensation. Once more, is it not a fact 
that the ceremonial law, "even the law of com- 
mandments, contained in ordinances," was not abol- 
ished until Christ was on the cross? (Eph. ii: 13 — 
17,) for it is expressly said, that he "blotted out 
the hand-writing of ordinances — and took it out of 
the way, nailing it to the cross." (Col. ii: 14.) — 
Then, and not till then, were all externals, that 
were connected with e the king-dom of God,' changed. 
Is it not also said, that "A testament is of force af- 
ter men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all 
while the testator liveth ?" (Heb. ix: 17.) Then 
the externals [for the moral code was not changed] 
of the New dispensation were not in force, and 
hence not practiced until after the death of Christ 
Here is then testimony upon testimony, even beyond 
a possible possibility of contradicton, that not only 
John, but Christ, and his Disciples, previously to 
Pentecost, (Acts ii: 1 &c.,) all officiated under the 
OQd dispensation. 

Q. 5. What arguments may be had from the apos- 
tolic commission (Math, xxviii: 19) not having been 
given until after Christ's resurrection,- and just be- 
fore his ascension, in connection with the fact that 
St. Paul (Acts xix: 1 — S) baptized Disciples, although 
previously baptized by John ? 

A. These: As no baptisms could have been 
administered in the name of the Holy Trinity, before 
the words of the institution had been given, as the 



€!hap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 183 

Disciples baptized by John had "not so much as 
heard whether there be any Holy Ghost," as St. 
Paul explains John's baptism to have been such as 
required faith in the Messiah to come; and as John 
himself says, (John i: 31,) that it was also designed 
to manifest Christ to Israel; and as St. Paul therefore 
baptized those Disciples in the name of the Lord 
Jesus, i. e. by his authority — the words of the insti- 
tution — the apostolic commission — although previ- 
ously baptized, the Apostle clearly teaches, that 
John's baptism was not only materially different 
from the baptisms administered by the words of the 
institution, but positively thus makes null and void 
all baptisms of a similar nature, •administered previ- 
ously to the giving of the apostolic commission: and 
so, consequently, John, Christ, and the Apostles' 
ministry, before the days of Pentecost, are all, again, 
placed under the Old dispensation. 

Q. 6. But of what importance are these facts on 
the subject of baptism ? 

A. 1. That neither of them could, as honest and 
pious men, have violated the ceremonial law of Mo- 
ses. If they did, they, contrary to what St. Paul 
taught, (Gal. v: 3,) refused to become 'debtors to 
do the whole law,' and (Gal. iv: 4) Christ was not 
'made under the law.' This is not possible. 

2. That then the only proper source of reference, 
in order to define the mode or action of John's bap- 
tism, and those administered by the Apostles, (John 
iv: 1 — 3 3 ) under the supervision of Christ, is the 
Mosaic ritual. 

Q. 7. What information does John iii: 25 — 31 
furnish in ascertaining this point? 



184 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Pari 3. 

A. This: A question having originated between 
some of John's disciples and the Jews, no doubt 
such as John had baptized, relative to the popularity 
of the Lord Jesus Christ and that of John, which he 
decides as natural, and which he expected, because 
Christ was greater than he. This subject must have 
been brought to have had a bearing on their minds, 
from the visible declension, at that time, of the sub- 
jects for baptism on the part of John's ministry, and 
the great and multiplied increase of subjects for bap- 
tism, (John iv: 2,) on the part of Christ's! and as 
they termed it il a question — about purifying ," they 
manifestly made baptism, as then administered, and 
purifying synonymous terms, or one and the same 
thing. 

Q. 8. But in what did the process of the purifica- 
tions of the Jews consist? 

A. In an application of the thing (Num. viii: 7; 
xix: 18) performed by a properly authorized person 
(viii: 5 — 8; xix: IS) to the subject, and then some- 
times not, (Ex. xix: 10, 14,) and then again some- 
times followed by an additional (Num. viii: 7) wash- 
ing or bathing (xix: 19 — 21) performed by the individ- 
ual himself, or merely in a washing or bathing (Lev. 
xvii: 15) by a separate and special act performed by 
the person thus purified. 

Q. 9. But still how will you arrive at the mode or 
action of water baptism from an examination of these 
ceremonies? 

A. Thus: As that part of the Jewish purifica- 
tions, which required a washing or bathing, was al- 
ways to be performed by the individual himself, and 
as the other part, which demanded an authorized ad- 



thap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 185 

ministrator, was always performed by sprinkling, 
(Num. viii: 7; xix: 18,) or an application, we plainly 
see that John's baptisms and all others administered 
previously to Pentecost, (Acts ii: 1, &c.,) as they de- 
volved upon authorized officiating persons, John i: 
6, 33, &c, or required administrators, excluded all 
that part of the purifications used as washings and 
bathings, and consequently every thing like submer- 
sion. A manifest evidence that John and the Apos- 
tles, while under Old Testament times, performed 
their officiating ceremonial acts by an application — • 
even by a process of sprinkling, 

Q. 10. But may it not be inferred from the ques- 
tion, among other queries put to John by the Priests 
.and Levites, ( John i: 19 — 28,) that John's mode of 
administering baptism varied from the Mosaic ritual; 
for we are informed, v. 25, that "They asked him 
and said unto him, Why baptizeth, thou, then, if 
thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that Pro- 
phet?" 

A. This cannot, in the remotest shadow possible 
be inferred. What drew this query from the que- 
rists, was to ascertain John's ministerial character, 
whether he were the Messiah or not. This inquiry 
was, however, obviously, without a doubt, founded 
upon the fact that he baptized. Hence it is said, 
'Why baptizeth thou then, if thou be not that Christ,' 
&c? How could they be strangers to the fact, that 
Christ, when he would appear, would baptize, is in- 
conceivable. It had not only been prophetically de- 
clared, but the mode itself also thus as emphatically 
and clearly defined; Ez. xxxvi: 25 — 28; Isa. Hi: 15, 
r 'So shall he sprinklz." But they thought personally 
rot as was the case, only under his supervi» 



186 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Pari 3, 

sion. (John iv: 1 — 3.) John therefore immediately^ 
among other things, informs them, (i: 26 — 28,) that 
although he baptized with water, there was another 
already in their midst, of higher order and greater 
authority than he: that to him they should look for 
those ministerial functions, [referring, among other 
things, to the spiritual baptisms, afterwards ad- 
ministered by the Savior himself,] which would de- 
signate him as the Redeemer of the world. However 
else, then, they may have viewed this external, it 
was, in one sense, still no new thing. True it was 
based upon prophecy, and spoken prospectively of 
Christian Baptism under the New dispensation; but 
still that did not alter the mode or action cf the pu- 
rifications (Num. xix) so common among them.— * 
That John's baptism was nothing short of a purify- 
ing, has, we trust, been clearly shown; but in further 
confirmation we quote testimony: We are inform- 
ed, John iii: 25 — 27, that "Then arose a question 
between some of John's disciples and the Jews about 
purifying. And they came unto John and said unto 
him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, 
to whom thou bearest witness, behold, the same 
baptizeth {i. e. purifietli] and all come unto him." — 
That then the use of these words 'purifying* and 
'baptizeth,* is here used interchangably and as refer- 
ing to the same thing, is incontrovertible. What 
however made this external new, and especially ao 
much so to them, so that they should have suspected 
from the use that John made of it, and that perhaps 
he might be the Messiah, was owing to the fact 
that he had connected it with what had almost, in 
all their religious externals, been forgotten, repen- 
tance. For what knew Nichodemus (John iii; J— »5) 



Dhap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 1W 

when Christ spake, not however of externals, but of 
the spirituality of th<e kingdom, under the Old dis- 
pensation? — and still lesa, {v.J>- — 10 J when he spake 
prospectively of both under the New? Hence John, 
Math, ii: 3, Christ, iv: 17 and his Disciples, Mark vi: 
12, cried, "Repent ye," [and added, as th£ time had 
arrived,] "for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." 
Therefore, too, this external, thus connected, con- 
stituted a. rite, termed (Luke iii: 3) "The Baptism of 
Repentance," or Num. xix: 9, "A Purification for 
Sin;" that is, which represented defilement and re- 
quired a dedication or consecration. Thus then 
again we have testimony, that all the baptisms (Math, 
iii:. 5; John iv: 1 — 3) administered previously to the 
giving of the apostolic commission, as they were 
connected with no other ceremony, were a process 
of purifying. Again, as it never was said after the 
day of Pentecost, c The kingdom of heaven is at 
hand,' that after that time it had only, with new ex- 
ternals, come; and that John, Christ, and his Disci- 
ples, previously, all officiated under Old Testament 
times. 

Q. 11. Does it not, however, still appear, from 
John i: 6, that as John was "sent from God [v. 33] 
to baptize with water," and thus [v. 7] "to bear 
witness of the Light;" [Christ;] or as John expresses 
himself, [v. 31] that Christ "should be made mani- 
fest to Israel; therefore am I come baptizing with 
water," as though John had not been placed under 
the Old dispensation ? 

A. Not at all. All the true prophets were, in 
one sense, 'sent from God,' to testify of the blessed 
iledeemer-— John, however, more especially so. — 



188 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

As his immediate harbinger, he bore testimony ver- 
bally and symbolically. By the former, that Christ 
was almost, or already in their midst; and by the lat- 
ter, water baptism, or the process of purifying, a 
legislation of ancient days, that they were unclean 
through sin; the touch of death, Rom. vii: 24, even 
"the body of this death," or through that which 
causeth death; and hence the necessity of an imme- 
diate preparation of heart for his reception, all de- 
signated by that particular external, Therefore al- 
so John (John i: 23) refers the Priests and Levites to 
Isa. xl: 3 — 6, which, by the by, gives nothing neio of 
a ceremonial nature, but & reformation of morals: to 
which maybe added, MaL iii; 1 — 5, as further proof 
of the necessity of this renewal, and the restoring of 
the old landmarks of the priesthood to that of former 
times. 

Q. 12. But why was John termed "John the 
Baptist?" 

A. Not on account afthe multiplicity of subjects 
(Math, iii: o — 7) he baptized, or the Lord Jesus 
might have received, with more equal propriety, a 
similar title: (John iv: 1^-3:) but to the then novo! 
contrast between John's ministry and that of the 
Pharisees, The one with all the zeal of a Reform- 
er, renewed the true import of the purifications, 
while the other, with PapaMike fury, held more 
sacred the observance of the tradition of the Elders^ 
* Math, xv : l-^-lO; Mark vii: 1-^14;) even so much 
so, that they, as externals, must have been measura- 
bly neglected. Hence also in part (John iii: 25 — 27 
f he question, as already seen, put about purifying. 

Q. 13. Were all the baptisms at that time cerfr- . 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BABTISM 189 

tnonially followed by an additional washing or bath- 
ing ? 

A. Our business is with the ceremonial mode or 
action of an administrator, such as John and others 
performed, and as Christian baptism demands, and 
not the process of the prescribed washings and ba- 
things of those times, that sometimes followed, and 
which were afterwards performed by each individual, 
As for Christ's baptism, nothing of the kind was con- 
nected with it. We would, however, here remark, 
that the candid and upright professor of religion al- 
ways did, and ever will comply with all the scriptu- 
ral matters of fact prescribed. 

Q. 14. Were Christ's baptism, and those of thfi 
multitude, as administered by John, two distinct 
things 1 

A. They were in nature, but not in mode or ac- 
tion. This the use of the word baptize, in expressing 
the process of the action, (Math.iii: 5 — 7, 13, &c,) ot 
both partly decides. The former was a ministerial 
consecration, (Ex. xxixi 4—8,) and the latter " A pu- 
rification for sin," (Num. xix: 9, 17, IS) or "The bap- 
tism of repentance." (Mark i: 4; £x» xix: 10,14.) 
Neither was there ever, also, by the by, a man bet- 
ter qualified (Math, xi; 11) to attend to either than 
John. 

Q. 15. But can you here give decided proof in 
favor of the word baptize, thus used, in defining the 
mode or action of those baptisms? 

A. Yes. 1. The officiating act of the baptism or 
purification of the multitudes, (Math, iii: 5 — 7; John, 
iv: 1 — 3,) preparatory to the New dispensation, and 
the consecratory act of the consecration of Chris? 
(Math, iii: 13 &c> to the ministry, are not only botfcs. 



m CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3 

expressed in these passages by baptize, but the leg- 
islative act of each in the Mosaic ritual defined. — 
The former in Num. xix: 13, by the word [Heb 
zaraq, Gr. hrantismou ,] 18, 19, [Heb. hizzah, from 
nazah, Gr. perirhranei,] sprinkle, and the* latter in 
Ex. xxix: 4, by the word [Heb. rahhats*, Gr. louseis] 
and Lev. viii: 6, [Heb. rahhats, Gr.-elousen,] wash. 
This then is proof that sprinkle and wash were used 
interchangably, and hence synonymous.- 2. Easekiel 
xxxvi: 25, and St. Paui,-Heb...x: 22'^ expresses the ac- 
tion in the use of 'clean'— of 'pure' water'— in the 
Christian church, by sprinkle and wash: so that they 
make these words again synonymous. See also Isa. 
lii: l^j Eph. v: 26— 28; Titus iii:5— 7. 3. St. Luke, 
Acts xxii: -W, m giving a statement of St. Paul's 
baptism, makes baptize and wash synonymous. 4. 
St. Paul, Heb- x: 22 and St. J-ohn, Rev. i: 5, in 
speaking of the efficacy of the blood' of Christ, of 
which, so* frequently seen; baptism is symbolical, to 
mean the same thing; and hence also synonymous. 
5; It is also certain that John, Math, iii: 11, Christ, 
Acts i: 5; xi: 16, and the Apostles, xi: 1 — 17, always 
held up, as also so often seen, the water and spirit t» 
al baptism as having resemblance — an 'analogy, ex~ 
pressing the process also of both of these by baptize; 
thus evidently making again'the" action of both the 
same, or synonymous; so that we have not only wash 
developed to mean an application, a sprinkling, but 
baptize, (Jdhn iii: 5; vii: 30;- Acts i:8,* ii; 17,33; x: 
44 &c.; xi: 15,) in the action of all the baptisms of 
the Holy Scriptures'; when and where an administra- 
tor was required as being expressive of having been 
performed by a process similar, or to that effect. 
Again, to suppose that the consecratory act of the - 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 191 

priests, though expressed (Ex. xxix 4) by the word 
wash, was an immersion, when that of the Levites, 
and every priest (Num. iii: 12, 10, 32; xvi: 10) be- 
ing a Levite, is expressed (viii: 7) by the word [Heb. 
hazzeh, from nazah, Gr. perirhraneis] sprinkle, is in- 
consistent and foreign to the subject. 

Q. 16. When then was the prediction, Ez. xxxvii: 
25 — 28, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you,'' 
literally fulfilled ? 

A. Never under the Old dispensation. Then not 
till after the giving of the apostolic commission. 
Previously, Num. viii: 7, "The water of purifying,'' 
xix: 3, 13, or "of separation" was always (xix:) a 
mixture, and looked upon v. 9, as < a purification for 
sin,' Heb. ix: 13 — 15, Mark i: 4, or 'the baptism of 
repentance.* In Heb. x: 22, in the expression 'pure 
water,' we have also reference to New Testament 
times. But why the expressions, 'clean' — 'pure wa- 
ter' — if it had not been intended to distinguish the 
thing in Christian baptism from a compound used in 
a process of purifying? This then excludes the 
idea of John having needed "much water,"* or "the 
River of Jordan," in order to perform a plunge, to 
accomplish the administration of water baptism. — 
This is then a total explosion of immersion- 

Q. 17. What do we learn from Ex. xix ? 

A. That if it was necessary that the people of 
God had. to-bespecially sanctified", v. 10 &c, [Heb.g-a- 
dhash,. consecrated r separated,, set apart from a com- 
mon service of sin and Satan, to a sacred purpose or 
service to the Lord,] through Moses, [by a process 
of purifying,] for the manifestation of Deity, in giv- 
ing the law, that then certainly a preparation (Luke 
iii:: 2, &c.) of a similar sanctifying nature, designa- 



m CHRISTIAN BABTTSM Part 2 

ted by John's baptism, for the approach and mani- 
festation (John i: 31) of Christ, in giving the full wd 
perfect gospel light, was also. 

Q* IS. What does this part of the Mosaic legis- 
lation warrant ? 

A. The safety of an irrefragable challenge, that 
defies the world to point to, or even draw a single 
inference from a single passage of scripsUze, under 
the Old dispensation, teaching that an authorized 
officiating person ever immersed, whilst it has abun- 
dantly been shown, that they all sprinkled, or made 
ttse of an act, in some form or other, of an applica- 
tion in their officiating capacity. 

Q. 19. Can it, however, be made appear, that 
t^e washings and bathings performed by the individ- 
uals themselves, were total immersions ? 

A. Even this, from afair, strict , critical exami- 
nation of the original texts, is impossible. 

Q. 20, What do you make of Math, xxi: 23— 2S I 

A. This; That if John had violated the legisla- 
tion of Moses, in the administration of his baptisms. 
that "the chief priests and elders," who were cer- 
tainly sufficiently jealous, malicious, and wicked 
enough to have gone any length in this matter, and 
that they had a fair opportunity to have pointed out 
this sin. 

Q, 21. What information have we on the subject 
of baptism, from a more fulj de.velopemcnt of Johns 
ministerial functions ? 

A. This: John besides being the harbinger of the 
blessed Savior, as Priest, rilled the priestly office 
This cannot be denied. He was of priestly origin 
(Luke i: 5 — 14;) at thirty, as was usual, (Num. m 3; 



'Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPT ISM. 193 

viii: 24 — 26,) he entered into priestly orders, (Luke i: 
24—46: iii: 21—24,) and "fulfilled his course/' 
Actsxiii: 25, as such. Hence we see again, he offi- 
ciated under Old dispensation times, according to 
the legislation of that office; and as no enactments 
of a priestly order, when it required an administra- 
tor, were ever given requiring submersion, John, 
nor any one else, of those times, dare immerse ano- 
ther. 

Q. 22. But did not the Twelve, though no priests, 
baptize also*? 

A. They did, but yet by priestly authority. This 
was by special appointment of the Lord Jesus, as 
"The Great Apostle and High Priest of our profes- 
sion. " Heb. iii: 1. Therefore those baptisms (John 
iv: 1 — 3) also went in the name of Christ. (John 
iii: 26.) 

Q. 23. But did not Christ thus violate Old Testa- 
ment legislation, by appointing certain persons to 
-officiate in the priestly office, who were not ofpriest- 
ly origin? 

A. By no means. Rom. xv: 8, As "'A minister 
of the circumcision," he dare not-«-never did. He 
could not, and be (Heb. iv: 15) "without sin." Had 
this been otherwise, it would have also frustrated 
the design of the law, in being, Gal. iii: 24 — 26, 
"Our school-master," in bringing "us unto Christ." 
Therefore we hear Moses say, Deut. xviii: 15—21, 
(See also Acts iii: 19, &c.,) "The Lord thy God will 
raise up unto thee a prophet — like unto me;" not, 
-then, 'like unto' other prophets, or 'like unto' John, 
who, as priest, had no such authority; but 'like unto 
«ie;> who had, among other things, authority -to 



HI CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part*. 

appoint, as Moses did (Ex. xxviii: 11) Aaron and 
ethers, though then no more of priestly origin than 
were the Apostles when they were appointed. The 
law, then, was net infringed, but sacredly observed, 
and we have again proof to the point that Christ and 
the Apostles at this time officiated under the Old 
dispensation. 

Q. 24. Was there, however, any particular enact- 
ment in the ceremonial law of Moses for the modo 
of Christ's baptism ? 

A. That for the consecration of the Priests to 
the priestly office, is immediate and direct legisla- 
tion on this suhject. 

Q. 25. What was it like, and how will you make 
that appear ? 

A. The Priests when consecrated had to be thir- 
ty years of age. (Num. iv: 3, 23.) Christ, 'the 
Apostle and High Priest of our profession,' (Heb, 
iii: 1) when baptized was also thirty years old. (Luke 
iii: 21 — 24.) The Priests had to be washed with water 
(Ex. xxix: 4; Lev. viii: 6) and annointed with oil, (Ex. 
xxix: 7; Lev, viii: 12.) Christ too was washed with 
water, or baptized, (Math, iii: 16,) and annointed 
with the Holy Ghost, (Math, iii: 1G; Acts x: 38,) 
termed "the oil of gladness," and "an annointing 
above his fellows," the Priests. (Heb. i: 9.) It is 
then certain that Christ's baptism was his consecra- 
tion to the priestly office; and it is equally clear that 
he had reference to this particular legislation, when 
he said to John, relative to his baptism, (Math, iii: 
15,) "Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteous- 
ness." They then did not violate laiv. A denial of 
all this not only Forever deprives Christ of having 
beou 'made,' according to priestly order, 'under 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISIvT. 195 

the law,' but of ever having been consecrated and 
annointed Priest. 

Q. 26. But how will you prove wash (Ex. xxix: 
4; Lev. viii: 6) as expressing the action of the conse- 
cration of Priests, to mean an application of water 
to the subject? 

A. This has already been satisfactorily done. But 
to particularize things more especially, we will pro- 
ceed thus: The consecration was to have been 
performed at the deor of the tabernacle, (Ex. xxixc 
4,) where there was no water but what was contain- 
ed in the laver that stood between the tabernacle 
and the altar? (Ex..xviii: 13;) the design of which i* 
expressly stated to have been for the Priests to wash 
their hands midfeet before they entered into the tab- 
ernacle or ministered at the altar; (Ex. xxx: 20 — 22;.) 
bo that we cannot conceive how Moses could [had 
there been a sufficiency of water,J have immersed 
them, and tlven and there have exchanged their 
clothes without having exposed their nakedness: for 
the people — sven all the congregation — were requir- 
ed to be gathered together unto the door of the tab- 
ernacle, in order to see this rite performed, (Lev. 
viii: 3 — 7,) less that he should have consecrated them 
in a state of perfect nakedness. Again, 'after the 
washing, Moses was to clothe them with the priestly 
garments. (Ex. xxix: 5 — 16; Lev. viii: 7 — 15. ) It 
is, however, too absurd to suppose, would circum- 
stances warrant an immersion, that he would put 
.those garments on them without removing their 
wet clothes. This would have rendered them too 
Uncomfortable, and would have soiled and spoiled 
>the priestly vestments. To have immersed them 
^aked would have been indecent: whereas, undrir 



196 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 'Part '3. 

another form of administration, an application, the 
upper garments might have been readily exchanged 
in the presence of all, for the priestly robe. We 
then are compelled to conclude, that Moses must 
have applied a certain small quantity of water, in 
form of sprinkling- it upon their person. f 

Q. 27. But might not the Priests on such occa- 
sions have changed their wet clothes in the taber- 
nacle, or in a certain tent prepared for that purpose? 

)k. As for anything like this having taken place, 
is all absurd. There was express legislation, (Ex. 
xxviii: 42, 43,) that the Priests should wear "linen 
breeches to cover their nakedness; [i. e. before the 
Lord] — when they came unto the tabernacle," and 
that at the risk of life; and as their wet clothes 
could not have been exchanged without this expo- 
sure, it could not have been done in the tabernacle; 
(Num. viii: 15;) and as for a tent having been pre- 
pared for that purpose, or having been done else- 
where, we have not the least intimation, and suppo- 
sitions on religious matters will not do. Neither is 
there the least notice taken of a preparation having 
been made of this kind, or for an immersion. Noth- 
ing of <a sufficiency of water, bathing clothes, is so 
much as once named, or as having been had; whilst 
'•even v every article of the tabernacle, all connected 
with it, and the priestly garments are described with 
'the greatest minuteness. 

Q. 28. But how could Christ's baptism, adminis- 
tered by John, be his cousecration, when that of the 
Priests was performed at the door of the tabernacle, 
(Ex.xxix: 4,) in holy garments, (Ex. xxviii,) accom- 
panied with a sacrifice and sprinkling of blood, (Ex. 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM- . 197: 

xxix: 10 &c; Lev. viii,) &c, whilst at Christ's bap- 
tism we know of nothing of the kind taking place P 

A. A proper examination- of facts will clear up 
all this. 1. The Lord Jesus Christ himself is termed- 
the door (John x: 9) and the ivay, (John xiv: 6,) net 
only into the church, but into the "Holy of holies," 
or "Most holy place," [heaven; John xiv: 6; Hob. 
x: 19—2.2;] therefore St. Paul tells us (Heb. viii:: 
2) that He is "A minister of the sanctuary, 
and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitch- 
ed, and not man:" (Heb. ix: 11,) "A High Priest 
of great things to come, by a greater and more per- 
fect tabernacle, [viz. than that in the wilderness,] 
not made with hands;" (Heb. ix: 24,) who entered 
"into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of 
God for us." 2. Christ's innocence, holiness and 
perfections (Heb. vii: 26) were garments worn at 
his consecration, "for glory and beauty," (Ex. 
xxviii: 2,) that eclipsed all else ever worn by priests 
on such occasions. 3. John terms Christ (John i: 
29) "The Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of 
the world." He then was the grand sacrifice itself, 
the sum and substance of all sacrifices: (Heb. ix: 25- 
— 27;) x: 14; and before he entered into the 'Holy of 
holies,' (Mark xvi: 19; Heb. x: 12; ix: 12,) to offici- 
ate in person as Priest, his body was lascerated and 
his blood shed on the cross. Thus then all these 
difficulties vanish, and if there be any others they 
can readily, in the character of the Lord Jesus Christ, 5 
be made disappear. 

Q. 29. But is it not said, (Heb. vii: 16,) that- 
Christ was "made not after the law, a carnal com- 
mandment, but after the power of an endless life ?" 



198 CHRISTIAN' BAPTISM. Part' 3. 

A. This passage does not conflict with Christ's 
baptism, as his consecration to the priestly office, 
nor that lie should not have been consecrated by the 
exact mode or action by which the priests of the tribe 
of Levi were; because, when it is said that Christ was- 
'made not after the law of a carnal [frail, dying'] 
commandment,' the meaning is, that he had not in- 
herited the priestly office; that it had not come 
down to him by natural descentfrom the tribe of Le- 
vi, and that it was not like theirs,, for a limited and 
get time — from, thirty to fifty years — (Nairn, i.v: 3, 23;) 
aii'.l then to fall into the hands of another heir to the 
priestly office; 'but' that Ms was 'after the power 
of an endless life.' (Heb. vii: 1, 3.) 

Q. 39. But is it not said, (Heb. vii: 28,) "The 
law maketh men high priests who have infirmity, but 
the word of the oath which was since the law, ma- 
keth the Sun, who is consecrated for evermore." 

A. If the word of the oalh (Ps. ex: 4) which was 
since the law. r maketh the Son High Priest, that does 
%ot still siiy that Christ was nc-t (Heb. ii: .17,) "made 
Hike to his brethren," [the Jews, nndparticularly the 
griests,] 'made (Gral. iv:5 — 7,) under the law, [mor- 
al, ceremonial, &c.,] to redeem them that were un- 
sler the law,' and hence consecrated by John to the 
priestly office; but the Apostle designs to show ihe 
»;iper-cTcdlency of his ministerial functions; the su- 
Jt*rvority\ durability, and immutability of his office 
over the officialty of such men, who were made- 
high priests merely by law, as being without an oath. 
The context warrants all this, and therefore it is said 
"Who is consecrated [and perfected] for evermore. !V 

Q. 31. What testimony for Christ's consecra- 
tion to, the priestly office is derived from a compare 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 199 

tive view between him and othevs y as subjects of 
John's baptism ? 

A. This: He could not, as others, have been 
baptized unto repentance, (Mark i: 4; Luke iii: 3,J 
who knew of no sin. (Heb. iv: 15.) Neither could 
he, as others, have been baptized on the/aiih of 
the Messiah to come,* (Acts xix: 4,) as he certainly 
knew he was the person. How then could lie be- 
lieve what he knew was then present? Consequent- 
ly there was not only a material difference between 
the nature of his baptism and others,, but as he way 
'made under the law,' and as there was nothing else- 
of a ceremonial nature ever connected with his min- 
istry of an inauguratory character, performed by an- 
authorized officiating person, his baptism must have- 
been his consecration, not only to the priestly, but- 
even to the prophetic and kingly offices. 

Q. 3.2. But how can a particular legislation, for 
the consecration of the Levitical order of priests,. 
(Ex. xxviii: 43,) serve in proof of the mode of Christ's 
consecration^ when St. Paul informs us (Ueb.vii 
"That our Lord sprang out of Judahj of which tribe 
Moses spike nothing concerning priesthood"? 

A. This: It is said, (Ilcb. v: 5,) lie was "made 

a High Priest," and that, too, (Heb. ii: 17,) 'In all 

things — like unto his brethren.' What 'brethren*? 

Certainly, 'like unto his brethren'' — the Priests. It 

■, as. man, he was like others, but particu 

ly, like the former: or this language could 
not follow; "that lie might be a merciful and faithful 
High Priest." Then he was 'made a High Priest,' 
spiritually and invisibly, by divine appointment, but 
how externally or visibly, if not ceremonially set 



200 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM; Part 3. 

apart for the office ? What was his baptism ? It 
was not in nature like that of sinners. Yet he was 
Gal. iv: 4 — 6) 'made under the law' — in exact con- 
formity to the whole law, as all his brethren, but 
more particularly as his brethren, the Priests; or he 
acted officially under a dispensation without a legis- 
lative right; and hence necessarily a violator of law,. 
asinner! This is not possible. Then, as there was 
no other legislation than that contained in the Levit- 
ical code, he must have been ceremonially stt apart 
and consecrated Priest by that enactment. Again, 
he must have had proper, legal, legislative authority, 
through his baptismal consecration as a public teach- 
er, or we would, by some of the enemies — for they 
were numerous — somewhere in the New Testament, 
have an account of the rejection of this rite, as ad- 
ministered by John; particularly when we remember 
that his ministerial and priestly functions depended'- 
upon the legality of his consecration.. 

Q. 33. But what do you make of the declaration, 
Heb. vi: 20, " Jesus" was "made a High Priest — 
after the order of Melchisedec\" how then after the 
order of the Levitical priesthood ? 

A. Christ was not made, but only consecrated ac- 
cord' tig to the order of the Levitical priesthood. 
Hence 'after the order of Melchisedec,' means that 
their priesthood was of the same nature. This is- 
expressed in Heb. vii: 3, "Without father, without 
mother;'' that neither had parents of priestly order or 
of the Levitical stock, "without descent, " whose de- 
scent is not recorded, cannot be counted from parent 
to child, "having neither beginning of days nor end 
of Hie;" no law to limit the. time they came to o c _ 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 20T 

cupy the priesthood, as was the case with the Levit- 
ical order, from thirty to fifty , (Num. iv: 3, 23,) only 
twenty years of their life. 

Q. 34. But then when and how was the law, the 
rite of Christian Baptism, according to Heb. vii: 12,- 
as an external, changed ? 

A. Not until the apostolic commission (Mark xvi: 
15—17) was given. The change, however, did not 
consist in changing' the mode or action, but in the 
same mode or action being connected ■with the words 
of the institution. (Math, xxviii: 19.) As an evidence 
af thi3 being a change, and then, and not till tken r 
taking place, we have the testimony of all, even 
of enemies: they must grant it, because admitted by 
all, that "it is impossible to have Christian baptism 
administered unless connected with the words of the 
institution. " 

Q. 35. How then can, however^the Lord's Sup- 
per be an institution of the New dispensation, when 
instituted under the Old ? 

A. Readily. Luke tells us, (Luke xxii: 13— - 
21,) That "they [the Apostles] made ready the 
Passover, and when the hour (Ex. xii: 7 — 19; xiiir 
5, 10; Math, xxvi: 20) was come, he sat down, and 
the twelve x\postles with him. And he said unto 
them, with desire I have desired to eat this Passo- 
ver with you [then they must have eaten] before I 
suffer: [then it was necessary :] fori say unto you 
I will not any more [as hitherto] eat thereof until 
it [the Passover or type] be fulfilled [by the Lord's 
Supper or antitype] in the kingdom of God. [The 
Church under the New dispensation.] And he took 
tfce cup and gave thanks, [then he must have drank,} 



mi CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part ?. 

and said take this and divide it among yourselves: 
[they must have done so,] for I say unto you I will 
not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom 
of God [with new externals] shall come." Then 
our blessed Lord institutes the Supper. See the 
words of the institution. V. 19 — 21. But, by the 
by, we have here agaij* testimony to the point, that 
the Old dispensation had as yet not closed. But to 
the question: Now that the Lord's Supper comes 
in room of the Passever (1 Cor. v: 7) cannot be de- 
nied: hence, as already seen, a type [the Passover] 
of the antitype, [the Lord's Supper.] It will also 
be admitted that Christ could no more act contrary 
to the nature of a type, or to a prophecy (Math, v: 17 
— 20,) than contrary to a legislative principle — any 
enactment of law. 1. Then the Passover was insti- 
tuted in a foreign land; [Egypt, Ex. xii: 1 — 29:] 
hence the Lord's Supper had to be instituted under 
a foreign dispensation. 2. As the type was not only 
an annual, but a feast of a certain specified day and 
hour, (Ex. xii: 2; xiii: 4; xii: 6,) and as the Lord had 
designed at a certain time, before another pe- 
riod of the kind could expire, to ascend to heaven; 
and as the symbols of the type and antitype could be 
the better and the fuller exhibited; so that there might 
be a real, striking- contrast between them, such as 
could not have been without the celebration of the 
Paschal Feast having preceded: therefore the blessed 
Redeemer was typically bound to institute the Lord's 
Supper, on this very occasion and at this very time. 
Thus, then, although instituted under the Old dis- 
pensation, this ordinance, with Christian baptism, 
was intended to be perpetuated under the New. 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 203 

Q. 36. Was, however, nothing but the external* 
t)f the Jewish Religion changed ? 

A. There was a change also from that of a 
Theocracy , to that which is adapted to any just and 
honest civil legislation, and as such, can never in- 
fringe or impose upon the church, but must always 
be in strict harmony with her scriptural conscientious 
privileges. 

Q. 37. What do we here briefly learn from the 
nature of John's ministry ? 

A. 1. As John's doctrines (John i: 31; Acts xix: 
2— -8) were in accordance with the Old Testament 
scriptures, and as his mode [the law not yet being 
changed] of administering water baptism, corres- 
ponded with the Mosaic ritual, we of course learn 
that he officiated under the Old dispensation. 2. As 
John officiated under the Old dispensation, and as 
no autherized officiating person under that dispensa- 
tion ever immersed, but always applied the thing 
to the subject, so he must necessarily have applied 
the water to the persons he baptized. 3. That as 
John officiated under the Old dispensation, that were 
it possible, or could it be made fairly appear, that 
he really immersed, that that still would be no evi- 
dence that the apostolic commission required the 
mode or action of water baptism to consist in an im- 
mersion. 4. That Christ's baptism was never in- 
tended as an example for our imitation. 1. Nothing* 
of a ceremonial nature, that really belongs to the 
Old dispensation, (Heb. vii: 12; xix: 10; Eph.ii: 1& 
— 17; Col. ii: 14) was ever intended as an example 
for our imitation under the New. 2. Christ's bap- 
tism was a peculiar dedication to certain offices, a* 



20* CHRISTIAN BAPTISMS Part 3, 

Prophet, (Acts iii: 20, &c; Luke iv: 18—20,) Priest 
(Heb. iii: 1) and King, (Math, xxv: 34, 40; Ps. lxxxix: 
29, 20, 26—28; Luke xxiv: 41,) which cannot be ap- 
plicable to any other individual. 3. His example, 
if for imitation, would forbid all baptisms under 
thirty years of age. (Luke iii: 21 — 21.) 4. His 
baptism was not administered in the name of the 
Holy Trinity. If then for imitation, it would pro- 
hibit all baptisms from being administered according 
to the apostolic commission. (Mark xvi: 15 — 17.) 
It is then certain that Christ's baptism was never in- 
tended as an example for our imitation. 

Q. 38. But what then do you make of the pass- 
age in Math, xx: 22, where the Savior put the ques- 
tion, "Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall 
drink of, and to be haptizedwith the baptism that I 
am baptized with;" to which the reply was, "We 
are able ?" 

A. It. is clear, from the examination of facts on 
the subject of baptism already discussed, that the Lord 
Jesus did not here refer to that rite, but to that which- 
he was about to endure, as a sacrifice for the sins of 
the world. Hence to teach those to whom he spake, 
and to rectify the error in the request [v. 20] made 
by "the mother of Zebedee's children," that his 
kingdom did not consist in worldly preferments, he 
says, [v. 22,] in reply, "Ye know not what ye ask;" 
and then proposes the question, 'Are ye able to drink 
of the cup,' &c? This passage, however, like many 
others— a thing common to all languages — is illipti- 
cal. We will supply the words thus understood, and' 
the sense will be full and satisfactory. It will then 
read thus: "Are ye able to drink of the cup qf'death,- 
Tipr that which will execute — take life— produce death] 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BABTISM 2(0 

—of which I shall drink, and be baptized with the 
baptism of blood, [or elevated with an elevation of 
bloody sufferings, as the effect of the cup to be drank] 
with which / am to be baptized?" [or elevated.] This 
in a worldly point of view, as a preferment, I can 
Gonfer upon those in my kingdom on earth; to which 
they replied without due deliberation, and again,- 
without understanding what they said, c We are able.' 
Here, however, we but again see by this affirmation r 
poor, frail, human nature!! 

Q. 39. What do we learn on the mode or action 
of Christian baptism, from the nature of the apostolic 
eommission, Math, xxviii: 19, &c, in connection- 
with some other facts I 

A. That as the Apostles were, as instruments, 
through the instrumentality of water baptism and the 
gospel [the order of things in this passage] to disci- 
pie [See p. 103, A. to Q. 1] the "nations," (Isa. Ivi: 
6 — 9; lv: 5; lii: 15: Zech. ii: 11; 1 Pet. ii: 9—11) to 
act upon them passively, by "baptizing" and "teach- 
ing them,' 5 i. e. by acting exactly by the same ac- 
tion in the one case as in the other; which passive 
action is again expressed by the phrase, Markxvi: 15 
— 17, "He that believeth and is baptized" — who 
receives the gospel and receives baptism. As, too r 
the action of baptism should also be a perfect model 
of its grand counterpart, the act of circumcision, in 
which the subject was never applied to the instru- 
ment; and also, as water baptism portrays gospel 
facts and gospel mercies conferred, like circumcis- 
ion answered, [though more dimly,] gospel designs 
to be communicated; that hence, we see, it would 
»ot only have been as absurd to have immersed that 



206 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Pari 3. 

'nations' in water, as to have attempted to hare 
plunged them into the gospel truths; but also that im- 
mersion [which makes the element passive, and not 
the person] conflicts with the general tenor of the 
Scriptures; hence necessarily, too, with the apostolic 
commission-; so that the Bible then entirely excludes 
immersion from the Christian church. How can, 
how dare men then vindicate its practice ? 



SECTION II. 



CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING JOHN'S MINISTRY. 



Q. 1. If John baptized by an application, how 
then does it come that it is said, (John iii: 23,) " John 
— was baptizing in JEnon, near to Salim, because 
there was much water there 1" 

A. On account of the necessary accommodations 
of those that resorted unto him,, and not because of 
a sufficient quantity and deptb o-f water to baptize. 

Q. 2. How will you make that appear? 

A. From the original. 1. The expression, 'much 
wafer,' should have been rendered many fountains 
or springs. This is evident from the literal sense of 
iEnou, [Ainon.j Its derivation is Hebrew, from 
ayin, [eye] On accout r therefore, of the numerous 
eyes of the earth— fountains or springs — at the place, 
which were productive of the water that flowed forth, 
this place or town received the name of iEnon, or 
Eye. This then goes not to prove that John had se- 
lected that place on account of the depth, but the 
quality of the water. 2. The Greek, polla } much, 



Chap. Z. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 20? > 

and hudata, water, are both in the plural number* 
Even from our own language, it is clear, that neith- 
er the primary use of polla, nor the general scriptur- 
al exegetical sense, admits of it being rendered 
much, but many; so that hudata polla (John iii: 23,) 
can be more properly translated many waters, many 
springs, or many rivulets, than 'much water.' All 
this is evident; yea, even certain. When we say 
polysyllables, [polus sulable,] we do not mean to say 
a word of much syllable, but of many syllables. — » 
When we say the man is guilty of polygamy, [polu- 
gamia,] we do not intend to say he is guilty of hav- 
ing much wives, but of having many wives. Polythe- 
ism, [polus theos,] does not mean a belief in much 
gods, but in many gods. But to the scriptures. — 
Math, xiii: 3, "He spake," [polla] not much, but 
i( many things." Math, xvi: 2, "Suffer [potto] many 
things." Mark i: 3, 4, "Cast out [polla] many 
devils." Mark vi: 20, "Did [polla] many things." 
See John viii: 26; x: 32; Acts ii: 43; James iii: 2; 
Rev. i: 15, "The sound of [pollon] many waters." 
Rev. xiv: 2, "The voice of [pollon'] many waters." 
See again Rev. xvii: 1. May this suffice. For we 
deem it unnecessary to multiply specimens, to prove 
the correctness of our translation of the expression, 
li hudata polla." Thus we clearly see, the nature of 
the fountains, the quality of the water, must have 
been the sole cause of the selection of that place. 

Q. 3. Have you other testimony to offer on thig 
■ubject to obviate more of the difficulties ? 

A. Abundant. It all vanishes by a comparison 
of facts connected with John's ministry and that of 
the Lord Jesus Christ. We know that John officii 



m CHRISTIAN BABTISM Part 3. 

ted in retired, stationary places, such as (Mark i: 4) 
l <the wilderness," (John i: 23,) "beyond Jordan;" 
consequently, where there were no accommodations 
for the vast multitudes (Math iii: 5—7) that "'went 
out to him" "irom Jerusalem, and" from "all Judea 
and" from "all the region round about Jordan," to 
be baptized of him, but those natural to the places 
chosen; therefore "water," even "much icater," if 
you be pleased to term the streams such, is named. 
This was not the case with Christ. He was found in 
the midst of the community, officiating in public 
places, where there were accommodations. This is 
undeniable, for it is said, (Luke viii:l,) "He [Christ] 
went throughout every city and village, preachings 
and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: 
and the twelve were with him." And again we are 
told, (John iv: 1 — 3,) that Christ "made and baptized 
more disciples than John." If it then was necessa- 
ry that we should be informed that the officiating 1 act 
of John's baptism required much water, and hence 
he was found to he cut at, or even in a river, with a 
design to teach us the mode by which he administer- 
ed baptism, it was then equally necessary, and even 
more so, that we should know something about much 
water, or a river, with a design to teach us the mode 
by which the baptisms were administered (John iii: 
1 — 3) by the Apostles, under the supervision of the 
Lord Jesus Christ. The contrary, however, is the 
case. Not a single intimation of water is given, of 
going out to a stream, or even so much as a river 
once named, as having bearing upon any of these 
baptisms. Let any man, if he can, reconcile these 
facts upon any other principles. Should, however,. 
notwithstanding all this, the phrase, 'John — wag- 



Vhap. 2: CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 209 

baptizing in JEnon, — because there was much water 
there,' be still insisted on, in proof that John immers- 
ed, .then it can with equal propriety be taken as proof 
that all the baptisms (John iv: 1 — 3) administered 
under the supervision of the Lord Jesus, were per- 
formed by an opposite, a different mode — even by an 
application — as not the least notice is taken of wa- 
ter, or a stream of any kind. Nothing then will suf- 
fice on this subject, in taking the expression, 'much 
water, 9 as testimony for immersion, than first a com- 
plete confutation of the above facts, and then to 
prove the water to have been sufficiently deep to 
have admitted of an immersion, and that John did 
really dip his subjects all over into the water. 

Q. 4. But are not the circumstances connected 
with the miracles (Math, xiv: 14 — 22; Mark vi: 32 
— 45; Luke ix: 10—18; Math, xv: 29— 39) of the Lord: 
Jesus performed in the wilderness.,, a serious objec- 
tion to this view of things ? 

A. Not at all. When these miracles were per- 
formed, Christ was not stationed like John had been?,, 
but was met by the people in his travels, or they 
followed him to private retired places^neither select- 
ed nor appointed as places for instruction. (Math, 
xiv: 10—15; Markvi: 31—34; Math, xv: 29—31; 
Mark viii: 1 — 4.) If Christ then had compassion on 
the multitude, and supplied them with bread, then 
they must have had water^or he would have supplied 
them with that also. That they had is certain, or 
they could not have, as we are informed, at least om 
one occasion, remained with him three days. (Math, 
xiv: 32.) It is then plain, even undeniable, that the 
circumstances of those miracles are no objection, to. 



510 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

our view, but testimony to substantiate matters of 
fact. John needed water at JEnon for the accom- 
modation of the people, whilst they must have had 
bread: Christ needed in the wilderness, for a similar 
purpose, bread, whilst they must have had water: so 
of the one, information is given of a sufficiency of 
water, and of the other of a miraculous supply of 
bread. 

Q> 5. But what do you mean by accommodation* 
being had at iEnon, by the expression,, 'much w tu- 
tor ?> 

A. This: That the grand object in thaselection 
of the place was to supply the vast multitudes, and 
their animals, upon whiclvsome must have rode, with 
^vater, whilst the people attended to John's ministry. 
Provisions they may have carried, but to have carried 
a supply of water was impossible. All this, moreo- 
ver, is natural. Whenever only ordinary assemblies 
on a previous appointment, for only a day assemble 
together, places with a supply of water are selected, 
as only appropriate for the occasion. Thus places 
for the celebration of the fourth of July, camp-meei.- 
ingSy &c.,.are chosen. 

Q-;,6. Wih at then-was the essential difference bs- 
tween John and Christ's operations ? 

A. This: Christ, with few exceptions, travelled 
from place to place, (Luke viii: 1,) met the people 
publicly where they resided, where there were accom- 
modations; whilst John kept himself stationed for a 
certain time at certain places, (Mark i: 4; John i: 
2S; iii: 23,) where there were no accommodations, 
iMath. iii: 5 — 7,) to which the people resorted; arui 
therefore common sense would suggest tu the one r 



Chap. Is CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 21*. 

not only to select a place with water for the accom- 
modations of the occasion, but also to speak of it,, 
without the other being necessitated to make any 
such arrangements,, or incline him to say any thing- 
about it- 



SECTION III. 



JOHN IN JORDAN. EN, EIS, APO, AND EK, OR EX, 

EXAMINED. 



Q. 1. Where did John at first baptize ? 

A. Itis§aid, "in Jordan," in the water, under it s 
surface! But if so, how could John have said, (John 
x: 40,) that the Lord Jesus "went away again beyond 
Jordan into the place [into the water, under its sur- 
face!] where John atjirst baptized and there abode"?; 
Does c in 9 mean 'beyond Jordan'? Had John resided 
withe water, under its surface? and did Christ go 
thither to abide there also? 

Q. 2. But did not J*ohn baptize Hn Jordan / a^id 
hence immerse ? 

A. We reply interrogatively. Could he not have 
baptized in a river in some other way? How then 
can in define the mode or action of water baptism? 

Q. 3. To what extent will Hn? further serve in 
throwing light on this subject ? 

A. In this: that if 'in,' in the expression , (Math, 
iii: 6,) 'baptized in Jordan,' must necessarily define 
the mode or action t o mean nothing but a dip, plunge y 
or an immersion, then 'in,' in the phrase, (Mark 
i: 4,) "baptized in the wilderness," must also. — 
'■Wilderness' may here mean ajbrest, but more likcr- 



212 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Pari. 3. 

ly a sandy and even a rocky place. Surely none will 
venture to say he dipped, plunged, or immersed the 
people into either of them! 

Q. 4. Can a fair scriptural specimen be given, 
that the expression l in Jordan' does not sometimes 
even mean in the waters of Jordan ? 

A. Here is one, Josh, in: 8: "When ye are come 
to the brink of the water of Jordan, ye shall stand still 
in Jordan." 'In Jordan,' here means nothing more 
nor less than down below the banks of the Jordan, 
at the brink or edg-e of the water, and not in it. This 
then is testimony to the point, that any place below 
the banks of that stream was Hn Jordan.* Hence 
the multitudes baptized by John, if immersed be- 
tween the brink of the bank and the edge of the wa- 
ter,were immersed on dry land! 

Q. 5. But did they not, after they were baptized, 
Math, iii: 16, (i come up out of the water"? 

A. 1. So the Priests under Joshua might have 
done; and that, too, without having been dipped, 
plunged or immersed. Moreover, we are informed, 
Josh, iv: 17 — 19, that this really, took place. 2. 
Neither can the expression^ 'come up out of,' ever 
establish that they were put under the water. We 
may go down in our fields and forests, and come up 
out of them,. without having been under theiru We 
also can go down in or into the river, where there 
are banks, and not even get to the edge of the water, 
and come up out of it. This may be done, too, with- 
out the least danger of getting under thi water. 
Wc can even go so far as to go in the water, and 
come up out of it, without having been ankle deep 
in it. How trifling, then, to venture an immersion, 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 213 

upon a mere supposed definition of in or into, as if we 
did not understand our own language: or upon out of, 
as though we could not have come out of a place or 
thing, without having heen under it! In, or into, 
and out of, then at most only can specify where we 
may have been, and cannot possibly deffne any pre- 
cise action — less that it should change the definition 
of baptize, in its use in the rite of Christian baptism, 
as always to make it mean, to dip. plunge, or im- 
merse! 

Q. 6, What might be the nature of the Greek 
prepositions of the Holy Scriptures 1 

A. As follows: 

1. En: It occurs in the Greek Testament up- 
wards of a thousand times, and is frequently render- 
ed in adverbs, and often the sense is involved in 
other words. Its use is such, that it had to be trans- 
lated upwards of one hundred times at, and one 
hundred and fifty times with, in order to carry out 
the sense of many of the passages. We will give a 
few examples: John xxi: 20, "The disciple — who 
—leaned on his breast [en] at [not in or into] sup- 
per." Heb. xii: 2, "Jesus is set down [en] at [not 
in or into] the right hand of the throne of God." 
Mark v: 2, "There met him out of the tombs a man 
[en] ivith [not in or into] an unclean spirit." Luke 
xiv: 34, "If the salt have lost his savour [en] with 
' [not in or into] what shall it be seasoned?" It sig- 
nifies, also, to, unto, towards, by, &c, &c. 1 Cor. 
ix: 15, "Neither have I written these things that it 
should be so done [en] to or wnto [not in or into'] 
me." John xix: 41; Luke ii: 14, "Good will [e?i] 
■ towards [not in or into] men." Math, v: 34, 



214 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

"Swear not at all: neither [en] by [not in or into] 
heaven." V. 36, "Neither shalt thou swear [en] by 
[not in or into] thy head." 

2. Eis: This word does not occur so frequently 
in the Greek Testament as the one above; yet it is, 
with e>i,as a preposition, rendered seventeen differ- 
ent ways. It is in the first five books rendered to 
eighty times. We will give as many examples as 
may answer the end of the present discussion. It 
signifies at, to, unto, towards, &c. -John xi: 32, "She 
fell down [eis] at [not in or into] Jesus' feet." Math, 
xviii: 29; Mark viii: 13, "He departed [eis] to [not 
in or into] the other side." Actsxxvi: 14, "When 
we were all fallen .[eis] to [not in or into] the earth.'" 
John xi: 38; Math, xvii: 27, "Lest we should offend 
them, go thou [eis] to [not in or into] the sea, and 
cast a hook, and take up the fish, &c* 2 Kings vi: 4 
"When they came [eis] to [not 'in 'or into] Jordan, 
they cut down wood." Math, xv: 24, "I am not 
sent but [eis] unto [not in or into] the lost sheep at 
the house of Israel." Math, xxii: 4, "Come [eis] 
unto [not in or into] the marriage." John xi: 31 ; 
Math, xxviii: 1, "As it began to dawn [eis] towards 
[not in or into] the first day of the week." Luke 

xiii: 22; Acts ii: 38, Eis [not in or into, but] "for 
the remission of sins*" Eph. iii: 19, "That ye might 
be filled [eis] with [not ui or into] all the fulness or 
God." 

3. Apo. This word occurs five hundred and 
ninety-two times in the Greek Testament, and is ren- 
dered eight times in adverbs, twelve times. the sense 
is involved in other words, and the remainder are 
.rendered in English prepositions, thirteen different 
.ways. It is translated from, three hundred and 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 215 

thirty-six times, of, one hundred and fourteen time3, 
and only forty-eight times out of. It is in the first 
five books rendered^/rom, two hundred and thirty- 
five times, and out of , only forty-two times: so that 
from is its primary scriptural meaning. We will 
give a few examples. Luke xvi: 21, "Desiring to 
be fed with the crumbs which fell [apo] from [not 
out of] the rich man's table," for they were not in 
the table. Math xxvii: 40, "If thou be the Son of 
God, come down \apo]from [notour of] the cross. " 
As he was nailed to it, he could not be required to 
come out of it. Luke iv: 13, "When the devil had. 
ended all the temptations, he departed [apo] from 
him. ,, Who would be demon enough to say out of 
him? for he was never in him nor possessed by him. 

4. Ek, or Ex: This word is also used in the 
Greek Testament in a variety of ways. It is in the 
first five books renderedy?*o?/i, one hundred and two 
times, and out of only seventy-seven times. We will 
here again give a few examples. Luke i: 71, "That 
we should be saved [ex] from our enemies, and [e/c] 
from the hands of all that hate us." It would not 
be good English to say out of our enemies, for they 
had never been in them. John vi: 23, "Howbeit, 
there came other boats, [ek'] from Tiberias." Sure- 
ly not out of the town! unless its streets were canals. 
Acts vii: 3, "Get thee [ek] from thy kindred." Not 
out of them, for he was not in them. 

Q. 7. What evidence do these facts give in favor 
-of immersion 7 

A. Not any. An examination of the following 
•passages will test this. Math, iii: 6, "They wer« 
Jbaptized of him [en] at Jordan." Mark i: 5, "Wert 



"516 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

all baptized of him [en] at the river Jordan." Mark 
i: 9, "Jesus was baptized of John [els'] at Jordan!" 
Math iii: 16, "Jesus, when he was baptized, \_anebe 
ascended up] went up straightway [apo~\ from the 
water." Anebe or anabainan, Mark i: 10, means to 
ascend an elevation, as that of the banks of the Jor- 
dan; and thus excludes the idea of ever having been 
in the water; hence Christ could not, according to the 
relation of facts connected with his baptism in either 
passage, have come out of, but from the water. Acts 
viii: 38 — 40, '"^Tlrey went down both [eis] to or un- 
to the water, both Philip and the Eunuch: and he 
'foaptized him. And when they [anebesari] were come 
'up [ex] from the water," &c; or thus: "They went 
down both [eis] fur the water, both Philip and the 
Eunuch; — one to administer baptism and the other to 
have it administered;] — and he baptized him. And 
when they [anebesari] were come up [ex] from the 
water," &c. Ere is used in this chapter nine times, 
and in eight of the nine it is rendered at, to, or un- 
to. 1 Cor.x: 2, "Were all baptized — [en] with the 
cloud and [en] iviththe sea;" that is, with the mist 
emanating from the cloud and the sea. 

Q. 8. What is the still further nature of en and 
eis? 

A. This: They are not only frequently used one 
for the other, and signify sometimes at, to, tec., but 
*also near to, in the vicinity of For example, Judges 
xviii: 12, "They went up, and pitched [en] in Kir- 
.'jath-Jearim, in Judah." The verse tells us this was 
"Mahaneh-dan," the camp of Dan, and which lay 
behind or west of Kirjath-Jearim: so that it was not 
in the place itself, but only near to, or in the vicinity 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 517 

of Kirjath-Jearim. Again, 2 Kings ri: 4, "When 
they came [eis] near to, in the yicinity of Jordan, 
they cut down wood." 

Q. 9. What use, on the subject of Baptism, are 
these facts ? 

A. Illustrative of the following passages: Math* 
iii: 6, "Were baptized of him [m] near to, in the vi 
cinity of Jordan." Mark i: 5, "Were all baptized of 
him [en] near to, in the vicinity of the river of Jordan." 
N 9, "Was baptized of John [eis] near to, or in the 
vicinity of Jordan." So much then for immersion! 
They may not even have been at a stream, but only 
near to, in the neighborhood of one, — perhaps, how- 
ever, at, to, or unto the edge; but certainly not in, 
or into the water. From these, then, and similar 
facts already presented, the word of God being its 
own interpreter, it is obvious, even certain, that not 
a single case of all the baptisms recorded in the sa- 
cred Scriptures, can be made appear to have been 
performed by an immersion, but on the, contrary, 
were all administered by an application of water to 
the subject. 

Q. 10. Of what use, on the subject of baptism, 
is the word [en] with, when connected with baptize, 
in expressing the rite of water baptism ? 

A. Of giving the manner of the action of the in- 
strument, John and the Apostles no more applied 
the subjects to the water, than Christ did his to the 
Holy Spirit: and if the same language, (Mark i: 8,) 
expresses the manner of the action of the instrument 
of the one, it must also of the other. And were we 
to try to comply with an action that a man would ex- 
press by saying, "I paint with my pencil," and we 

(0 



*18 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

would apply the thing to the pencil, instead of the 
pencil to the thing, it would not only be a very awk- 
ward action, but we would spoil the job. Again, 
were we to try to comply with an action that a man 
would express by saying, "I chopped down the tree 
with an axe," and we would try to accomplish the 
thing by applying the tree to the axe, instead of the 
axe to to the tree, it would not be done at all. In 
either case, a person of common sense would con- 
clude we were insane. And what is this short of im- 
mersion!! 

Q. 11. But if en and eis mean at, to, unto, towards, 
by, and not in or into, how will a person ever get 
into heaven, or be cast into hell ? Will he not then 
only find himself at, unto, towards or by one or the 
other place ? 

A. We will answer all this by using similar logic. 
If in and into always mean under, then there will 
still be as much safety in being found at, to, unto, to- 
wards or by heaven, as being found under it, and for 
those who may be so unfortunate as to find themselves 
under hell, as those who may only be found at, to, nn- 
io, towards or by that place of torment. But the fact 
is this: we do not deny, that they do not sometimes 
mean in or into a place or thing, but that their use 
does not warrant the idea of an immersion; less that 
they should define the mode or action of Christian 
baptism to mean under. But to put this matter for- 
ever at rest: Had a decree gone out from Caesar 
Augustus that all baptized by immersion should have 
been beheaded, where could there have been found 
a baptist jury of twelve honest men, that could have 
ventured, with the above examined testimony, to 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 219 

have condemned any of the subjects of baptism re- 
corded in scripture ? 



SECTION IV. 



THE LENGTH OF JOHN'S MINISTRY. 



Q. 1. What was the length of John's ministry? 

A. About nine months. "According to Luke iii: 
1, John opened his public ministry in the fifteenth 
year of the reign of Tiberias Caesar, (reckoning the 
three years of his reign conjointly with Augustus,) 
which, according to our most approved chronology 5 
answers to the thirtieth of John's life. It is gener- 
ally agreed by chronologers that our Saviour was 
born December 25th, A. M. 4000. John the Baptist 
was 6 months older than Christ, (vide Luke i: 30 — 36 
compared with verse 13,) and consequently, was born 
the 24th of June previously. Allowing, then, John 
to have opened his ministry at the age of thirty, in 
the latter part of June, year of the Vulgar era, 26; 
and supposing, as Luke says, (chap, iii: 21 — 23,) Je- 
sus was baptized when he was thirty years of age, i.e. 
about December 25th of the same year,* it would 
then follow that John had been engaged six months 
in his public ministry at the time of Christ's baptism. 
How long John continued baptizing subsequently to 
this period, we are not definitely informed. But 
from a careful collation of facts, we can safely limit 
the period of his after labors to four months. 

*I suppose it will be understood that the birth of Christ 
is reckoned to have actually taken place four years (strictly 
three years and six days) before the commencement of tht 
Yulgar era, or Anno Domini. 



£20 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part X 

"The last account we have of John, previously to 
his imprisonment, states that he was 'baptizing at 
Enon, near to Salim.' John iii. 23. This was im- 
mediately after our Lord had attended his first pass- 
over, which was celebrated on the fourteenth day of 
the month Nisan, which, as the Jews reckoned their 
years by lunar months, answers to the moon of our 
March. As a necessary consequence of their reck- 
oning time by the phases of the moon, the celebra- 
tion of their passover sometimes fell on the latter 
half of the month of March, and sometimes on the 
fore part of April. We cannot therefore be exact 
to a day; but by closely following the circumstances 
in the evangelist's history, we shall arrive at a rea* 
sonable certainty that John did not continue his min- 
istry beyond the period above assigned him. The 
whole chain of facts runs thus: After Jesus was bap- 
tized he went into Galilee, where, on the third day 
after his arrival, he attended the marriage at Cana. 
John ii. 1. After this he went to Capernaum, where 
he staid 'not many days,' verse 12. Leaving Caper- 
naum, he returned into Judea to attend the passover 
at Jerusalem, verse 13. Here he purged the temple 
(verse 14,) and held conversation with Nicodemus, 
chap. iii. 1—21. Leaving the city of Jerusalem, he 
went out into the province of Judea, and baptized, 
v. 22-, At this time * John was also baptizing at Enon 
near to Salim, 5 (verse 23,) about twenty miles distant 
Their mutual proximity and the increasing popular- 
ity of Jesus led to disputes among the Jews, (verses 
25, 26,) and excited the jealousy and malice of the 
Pharisees, chap. iv. 1 — 3. 'When therefore, the 
Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesue 
made and baptized more disciples than John, — he 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 221 

left Judea and departed into Galilee. 5 Here then, 
it is stated that Jesus 'departed into Galilee,* while 
John was in the vicinity of Enon r baptizing, immedi- 
ately after the first passover which our Lord attend- 
ed, i. e. the latter part of March, A. D. 27, nine 
months after John had commenced his public minis- 
try. But by comparing Matt. iv. 12, we find that 
Jesus did j^ot depart into Galilee at this time, until 
after 'he had heard that John was cast into prison.' 
The conclusion therefore is, that John was arrested 
during his stay at Enon; and Jesus in view of the 
commotion excited in Judea by that event, and also 
of the controversies going on there, concerning him- 
self and John, prudently withdrew, for a season, in- 
to the remoter parts of Galilee. 

;rious circumstances corroborate this conclu- 
sion. It is evident, both from Josephus and the New 
Testament, that John was arrested by Herod Anti- 
pas, governor of Galilee and Perea. But Enon lay 
at the southern extremity of Herod's dominions on 
the west of the Jordan; therefore, if John had been 
south of Enon, he would have been beyond the juris- 
diction of Hc-od. And, as we never read of John's 
going north of that place, we conlude that he was 
arrested at Enon. 

Ci Again our Lord did not fully open his mission un- 
til after John was cast into prison. Mutt. iv. 12 — 17. 
The popularity of John presented an impediment to 
the ministry of the Saviour. Indeed it is natural to 
suppose that two such great characters, laboring in 
the vicinity of eacli other, would inevitably produce 
a great division of public sentiment. Jesu« there- 
fore prudently withdrew himself until John ha- 



222 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

filled his course.' But from the nature of the case, 
he cannot be supposed to have then withheld long, 
— the object of his mission being of such paramount 
importance to that of John's. 

"Thus have we followed John, in his public min- 
istry, during the space of nine months. He had in- 
troduced Christ to the Jews, and having thus fulfill- 
ed the object of his mission, (John i. 31,) he retired 
by a singular providence, from the field of his labor, 
sometime in the month of April, A. D. 27. That he 
continued his ministry longer than about nine 
months, cannot be proved from the Bible." 

Q. 2. What information from this source, is de- 
rived from the mode or action of Christian baptism ? 

A. That the great multitudes whom John baptiz- 
ed could not, in so short a time, have been baptized 
by immersion. We are told, Math, iii: 5, "That 
Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round 
about Jordan, (Mark i: 5,) went out, — and were all 
baptized of him:" i. e., thegreat mass ofthe people, 
the Pharisees, Sadducees, (Math, iii: 7,) and the 
Publicans (Luke il: 12) not excepted. "They [the 
Jews] wcrt willing- ," says the Savior, when speak- 
ing of John, (John v: 35,) "for a season to rejoice in 
his light." Nor, it must be remembered, had 
John even nine months to attend to the rite of 
baptism. A deduction of time must be made for "in- 
troducing himself to the people, — for preaching to 
them, &c, — for the winter season, embracing storms, 
rains, &c; for moving from place to place." Neith- 
er could he have been expected to have labored all 
day without refreshment and rest. All this, then, 
would bring the functions of his office, which he had 



Chap. 2. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 223 

left to appropriate to the administration of the ordi- 
nance, to but a short period of time. Nor can we 
expect that John could have spent even the half of 
this time, which thus remained, in the water, and es- 
caped with his life; [for he performed no miracles, 
John x: 41;] so that immersion is entirely out of the 
question, as all the circumstances and facts go to 
prove that John's mode or action of administering 
baptism, must have been an application of water to 
the subject. 

Q. 3. But might not the disciples of John have 
aided in the administration of the baptisms recorded 
(Math, iii: 5 — 7) as his official act, when this entire 
duty under Christ (John iv: 1 — 3) devolved on his 
disciples? 

A. This is not revealed in scripture, and suppo- 
sitions, on religious subjects, as we have before ob- 
served, will not answer. 

Q. 4. But how could Christ (John iv: 1) have 
"made and baptized more disciples than John," if 
John had already baptized all the people ? 

A. Surely the circumference of "Jerusalem, all 
Judea, and all the region round about Jordan," did 
not embrace all the country of the land of Canaan, 
less all the inhabitants. 

Q. 5. But may not the meaning be, that only at 
that time, "Jesus made and baptized more disciples 
than John," and yet that John, upon the whole, bap- 
tized the greater number ? 

A. This could not have been the case, 1. The 
popularity of the blessed Savior must have shortly 
eclipsed John's. He no sooner set out in his min- 
istry than (John ii: 7 — 12) miracles followed, whilst 



224 CHRISTIAN BABTISM Part 3. 

John (John x: 41) wrought none. Moreover, (John 
vii: 46) none ever spake as Christ: therefore, he nat- 
urally, upon the whole, must have 'made and bap- 
tized more disciples than John.' 2. But if so, why 
then the silence on the part of Christ about water; 
and that, too, during all his ministry ? If John at 
that time needed "much water" — driver — in order 
to immerse many, then Christ certainly needed as 
much, as great a quantity, to immerse still more. 
Moreover, where do we meet with a single passage 
of scripture, during all the ministry, not only of 
Christ, but of the Apostles, where it is said that they 
left a house, preaching-place , or village, and went 
out to a stream, with a design to baptize ? Is there 
even any thing of this nature connected with John's 
ministry ? Thus, then, we see, that if even the idea 
be, that then only, at that very time, Christ 'made 
and baptized more disciples than John',' yet even on 
this supposition, when admitted, cannot conflict with 
what we have presented on the mode or action of 
Christian baptism: and that if we have any place 
whatever, unless circumstanced as was the Ethiopian 
Eunuch, Acts viii: 26, &c, and go out to a stream, 
with a design to baptize, that we have not a singlt 
example, fact, or even an intimation, in all the scrip- 
tures, to warrant such a practice. 



CHAPTER III. 



THE STRONGHOLD OF THE IMMERSIONIST EXAMINED 

111! SUPPOSED TESTIMONY CONFUTED. 



SECTION I. 



Our being- Plunged, Sfc, into Water, bears no An- 
alogy to the Death, Burial and Resurrection of 
Jesus Christ. Rom. vi: 1, &c; Col. ii: 12, &c. 



Q. 1. Does not the passage in Rom. vi: 1, &c., 
when comparatively viewed with the circumstances 
of Christ's burial, prove the mode or action of water 
baptism to be an immersion ? 

A. We will answer this question by proposing a 
few others, and by making such other remarks as 
shall, we trust, be conclusive. 1. Is it possible to 
dip, plunge, immerse or sink a person [v.3.J "into 
Jesus Christ?" or "into his death?" Or is [v. 4,] 
"death" called, in this passage, water? Again, how 
was it possible for St. Paul, if the expression, "ice 
are buried," has reference to water baptism, to have 
embraced himself and the Romans to whom he was 
then writing, to have been all at that very time, liv- 
ing in the watery grave ? His ink must have flowed 
very freely, if it had any current at all. For he says 
"therefore we fsee German translation] are buried 
with him by baptism into death." Mark, he does 
not say, we were buried, but "we are buried with 
him by baptism into death." Neither docs he say 
into water, but "into death." Can we not distin- 
guish between water and death? How then can this 
passage prove the mode or action of water baptism, 
k j ss that of immersion ? 2. But supposing the above 

(j-2) 



226 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part. 3. 

all possible, and 'death' to mean really water, there 
would still be no analogy between the burial of a 
person in water and Christ's interment in the sepul- 
chre, because his tomb (Math, xxvii: 60; Mark xv: 46) 
was not like modern graves, but a place hewn 
out of a rock, and had a door. Were this not so, 
we would not be told that (John xx: 3 — 6) one of the 
disciples stooped doicn and looked into the sepulchre. 
The lower part, then, must either have been on a 
level with the ground, or a little lower than the sur- 
face of the earth. It must also have had a hewn 
front, as high, at least, as the door, or (Mark xv: 46) 
a stone could not have been rolled to the mouth of 
the sepulchre, so as to have excluded a person. — 
That this must have been the case is certain, or there 
would have been no need of the stone having been 
rolled thither. This sepulchre, (Luke xxiii: 55, 56. 
xxiv: 1 — 4,) was large and capacious, capable (Mark 
xvi:l — 7) at least of accommodating four persons, 
with a space left, where the body of Christ had lain. 
An immersion, then, if we dare use the expression, 
to be analogous to Christ's burial, will first require 
a hewn watery sepulchre, so large as to contain at 
least four persons, with a perpendicular front, a door, 
and a watery stone to close up the mouth; and then, 
secondly, the person to be baptized must be carried 
and put into the watery sepulchre: whether feet or 
head foremost, or sidewise, we will not venture to 
say. It must also be done in such a way, that neith- 
er the administrators (John xix: 38, &c, — there must 
at least be two — ) nor subject may get wet; and care 
must be had that the watery stone be rolled to the 
door of the sepulchre, and then leave the subject un- 
til he rise of himselK 



I 



Chap. 3. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 227 

Q. 2. But should not the analogy be drawn be- 
tween Christ's burial in the water, and our baptism? 

A. If it, with a host of other difficulties, can be 
made appear that John's mode or action of adminis- 
tering baptism was really an immersion. 

Q. 3. But does the word "baptize," in this pass- 
age, prove the mode or action of water baptism to be 
an application ? 

A. It does not, in and of itself. Moreover, it is 
an insult offered to Heaven, and an imposition palm- 
ed upon man, to apply any expression ofthe like, or 
passage of scripture to a subject taught in the Bible, 
that is foreign^, separate and distinct from the one un- 
der consideration. 

Q. 4. What then might be the true interpreta- 
tion of this important passage of scripture 2 

A. This: — but here let us first give the principal 
scriptural import of the doctrine contained in the 
second verse, which the Apostle intended to vindi- 
cate, and then secondly, use as much ofthe chapter 
[to 14th v.] as will enable us to show how masterly 
he not only argumentatively upset, but entirely up- 
rooted the erroneous conception brought against 
the facts he taught. "How shall we," says he, "that 
are dead io sin, [in a converted or justified state,] 
live any longer therein? [in sin.] Know ye not, 
that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, 
[as were united to Jesus Christy as our head, and 
made subject to Ids doctrine, at the time this death 
took place in us through the baptisrn of the Holy 
Ghost,] were baptized into his death? [were united 
and made subject to hit death, i. e. io the benefits 
of his death, through our death to sin, by the baptism 
ofthe Holy Spirit, on account of his 9iiffering$ 9 at 



in . CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

his death.] Therefore we are [ever] buritd with 
him, (Col. iii: 3, morally hid with htm from the 
world,) by baptism into death, [by this union and 
subjection through death, his and ours,] that like 
as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of 
the Father, [for then there has also been a resurrec- 
tion of us from the dead, Col. ii: 12, "through the 
faith of the operation of God,"] even so we also 
[after this union to Christ as Head, and subjection 
to his doctrines, and our resurrection,] should walk 
in newness of life, For if we have been planted to- 
gether [in our death to sin] in likeness of his resur- 
rection. Knowing this that our old man [depraved 
nature] is crucified [slain] with him, [on account of 
this union and subjection to him,] that the body of 
sin [here we have the design] might be destroyed, 
that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he 
that is dead [to sin] is freed from sin. Now if we 
be dead with Christ, [to sin,] we believe that we 
shall also live with him. Knowing that Christ, be- 
ing raised from the dead [we too] dieth no more: 
[neither should we:] Death hath no more domin- 
ion over him. [Neither should it over us.] For 
in that he died, [we too,] he died unto sin once, 
[we too, 1 Cor. xv: 31, and must daily,] but in that 
he liveth, [we also,] he liveth] so we must] unto 
God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves [then] to 
be dead indeed [completely so] unto sin, but alive 
[fully so] unto God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
Let not sin therefore reign [have the control] in 
your mortal body, (hat ye should obey it in the lust 
thereof. Neither yield ye your members [any more] 
as instruments of unrighteousness to sin; but yield 
yourselves [now] unto God, as those that are alive 



. Chap. 3. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 229 

from the dead, [that state of sin, | and your members 
as instruments of righteousness unto God." 2 Tim. 
ii: 11, &c. 

Q. 5. What can you give in testimony of the cor- 
rectness of this view ? 

A. The sense of the passage itself. That there 
is a union and subjection to Christ expressed, no one 
will pretend to deny. Moreover, to be ''baptized 
into Jesus Christ," in no instance in the New Testa- 
ment, when the expression embraces a death to sin, 
\conversion or justification,'] conveys the idea of wa- 
ter, but spiritual baptism, and literally means, spir- 
itually united and made subject to Jesus Christ. That 
this union and subjection is taught in the scriptures, 
is certain, from 1 Cor. xii: 13, "By one Spirit are 
we all baptized into one body," and from Col. i: 18, 
"Christ is the Head of the body, the Church." — » 
These passages furnish us with these facts: 1. A 
spiritual baptism; 2. A union of the body formed by 
this baptism; 3. The Holy Spirit the Agent in form- 
ing this union; 4. That Christ, as Head of this body, 
[the spiritual church,] is intimately united to it; 5. 
That this body is governed by this Head: so that it 
is clear, that when we are said to be 'dead to sin,' 
we are baptized into Jesus Christ; i. e. united to him 
as our Head, and made subject to his doctrines. This 
then is undeniable. Again, what else can be made 
of this passage? Gal. iii: 27, "As many of you aa 
have been baptized into Jesus Christ, [as have been 
united and made subject to him,] have put on Christ." 
Because they have thus (Eph. iv: 22; Col. iii: 9) put 
off the old, and (Col. iii: 10) put on the new man. 
Can water baptism accomplish what the Apostle here 
asserts? Once more, do not, moreorer, these paral- 



no CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3, 

J els refer to and give this union and subjection? Gal, 
iii: 28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is nei- 
ther bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: 
for ye are all one [body] in Christ Jesus." 1 Cor, 
xii: 13, "By one Spirit we are all baptized into one 
body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we 
be bond or free; and have all been made to drink into 
one Spirit;" i. e. have been made by one Spirit to 
imbibe the same spiritual feelings, and the same 
spiritual doctrines, that that spirit has inculcated. 
To all this every Christian is ready and able to 
bear testimony — he does it daily. Gal. v: 22 — 26. 
Who then dare assume the authority to say that these 
passages are not parallels? Who, too, dare para- 
phrase the latter, so as to mean water baptism ? 
Can then the expression, Rom. vi: 3, "were baptized 
into Jesus Christ," mean merely water baptism ? 
The thing is absurd — ridiculous. Again, the body 
of which Christ is the Head, is [as already seen] not 
one member, but many. 1 Cor. xii: 14 — 2S, It has: 
no rotten, unconverted limbs or members: Eph. v: 
17, therefore no part of this body can possibly be 
constituted a member merely by water baptism.-r— 
Eph. v: 32 7 "This is a great mystery: [to some:] but 
I speak," says St. Paul, "concerning Christ and the 
church." 

Q. 6. But if this chapter treats solely of spiritual 
baptism, why then does the Apostle, in verse 17 , 
speak of the Romans as obeying the "form of doc- 
trine" which had been delivered them ? 

A. The expression, form of doctrine,' according 
to the original, means the gospel mould, or die, into 
which, by faith in Christ, they had been cast; which 
produced, through the Holy Ghost, the image of God 



Chap, 3. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 231 

in the soul, and moulded them into righteousness 
and true holiness of heart: therefore, instead of the 
common, this verse would read better according to 
the following translation: "But thanks be to God, 
that, although ye were the servants of sin, neverthe- 
less ye have obeyed that mould of teaching into 
which ye were cast." So instead of this passage 
confuting, .it establishes our view. 

Q. 7. What do you make of Col. ii: 12 ? 

A. This: In order to understand^ this verse, we 
must supply the sentence with the word being, that 
is understood, before the word "buried," and the 
passage will read thus: "Being buried [morally hid, 
Col. iii: 3] with him in [by or through] baptism [of 
the Holy Ghost] wherein [in which, or by or through 
which] also ye are raised with him [from your for- 
mer sinful state, to newness of life] through the 
faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him 
from the dead." 

Q. 8. But can you prove this to be the true sense 
of the passage ? 

A. Certainly. That it does not mean water bap- 
tism is obvious, from the fact that ii being buried" is 
a present participle, and hence expresses "time con- 
tinued, buUnot perfected." Had this passage refer- 
ence to water baptism the Colossians would have 
been at that very time, still in the watery grave ! 
This is absurd, contrary to the nature of things. 
To be, however, morally buried with Christ to the 
world, is always designated as having taken place, 
as necessarily continuing, and as never perfected 
until the true Christian terminates his life on earth. 
The interment of his depravity, as no longer predom- 
inating, commenced then at conversion, must con- 



232 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

tinue beneath the spiritual man's struggle to hide, 
and more and more conceal; so that the Apostle has 
properly, fitly defined this continued act of labor, by 
the expression, 'being buried, 1 * whilst it is equally 
certain, that then also a resurrection from sin and 
death took place, by having been quickened and 
made alive to righteousness and true holiness. So 
then a man, spiritually considered, may be dead, 
buried and alive-, all at the same time. Again, how 
can this passage refer to water baptism, when inform- 
ed that they had been raised, not by the feeble arm 
of flesh, out of a watery grave, but ''through the 
faith of the operation of God ?" That this passage 
then, too, refers to spiritual, and not water baptism, 
is incontrovertible. That it is also a parallel pass- 
age to Rom. vi: 4, is a matter of fact that the world 
cannot contradict. They, as passages conveying the 
same facts, then stand together; therefore, they can- 
not fall, unless they fall together; and this is impos- 
sible. Our view, then, of Rom. vi: 2, &c, must 
be correct. 

Q. 9. But have you not thus virtually admitted 
a representation of a death, burial, and resurrection? 

A. Upon the admission, be it so: how can then 
still the action of an immersion portray* a birth 
from above ? not much rather from beneath ! — 
It is not so with an application — an aspersion. In 
this the figure is right — consistent — scriptural— kind 
this is as far [in portraying a birth from above] as 
the action, in the administration of the ordinance, 
goes. It is not, then, the action that represents 
the death and burial of the Old Adam and the resur- 
rection of the New Man, but the principle in the 



Chap. 3. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 233 

water, which represents these happy and glorious 
effects. This, then, again entirely uproots im- 
mersion ! 

Q. 10. But is it not contended, that (Rom. vi: 4,) 
'*By baptism — we have been buried, as he [Christ] 
was buried, that as Christ was raised up from the 
dead by the glorious power of the Father, so we also 
having been raised up from our burial, [the watery 
grave,] should lead a new life?" Or, which amounts 
to the same thing, that "Buried with him [Christ] 
by baptism," that is, "were interred, covered up in 
a grave, or laid in a tomb," is the same as "buried 
with Christ by baptism;" and that this is beautifully 
and fully represented by the mode or action of water 
baptism, in being immersed, sunk, plunged, over- 
whelmed or dipped? 

A. This is the point at issue. But the fallacy is 
obvious, from the fact that the mode or action of thus 
administering water baptism is not the same: the one 
is to put in, close up, or cover with, and then leave the 
subject to rise, as Christ arose, or to rise (1 Thes. 
iv: 16) at the trump of God, the last day: whilst the 
other is, whether expressed by the words immerse, 
sink, plunge, overwhelm or dip, a mode or action 
of man, in putting in: yet he does not, but the water 
closes up and covers; and then he does not leave 
the subject to rise "by the glorious power of the 
Father" — but an immediate resurrection takes place 
by the feeble arm of flesh ! As soon, then, as these 
difficulties can be reconciled with Rom. vi: 4, we 
will give assent that this passage has reference to 
water baptism, and not before. Moreover, we have 
an ordinance — the Lord's Supper — to represent the 
sufferings, death, burial, resurrection, &c, of our 



234 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3, 

blessed Savior: and hence neither of these things 
can be represented by the mode or action of water 
baptism. 

Q. 11. What questions are so frequently propos- 
ed, with a design to ridicule the proper scriptural 
mode or action of Christian baptism, and the true 
meaning of the passages in Rom. vi: 4 — 6; Col. ii: 
12? 

A. 1. Does a few drops of water, sprinkled on 
the head of a person, look like a burial? 2. Would 
you be so simple as to plant potatoes by sprinkling 
or pouring a little earth on them ? 

Q. 12. How would you meet these quibs ? 

A. Thus: The first: It looks more like a bu- 
rial to sprinkle a few drops of water on the head, 
than to send a man to bury another, who would dip 
him into the water or plunge him into the earth, and 
then pull him immediately out, place him on dry 
land on the bank of the water, or on the side of the 
grave, and then come back and tell you he was 
buried. This is clear from the fact that if you would 
continue long enough in sprinkling, he might, after 
some time, perhaps, be buried; but by the modern 
practice of dipping, it could never be accomplished. 

The second. It would not be. half so simple, in 
planting potatoes by sprinkling or pouring a little 
earth upon them, and say they were planted, as to 
plunge them into the water, then remove them, put 
them on dry land, and say they were planted. But 
the fact is this: we do not profess to believe that 
sprinkling or pouring water, as the act of administer- 
ing Christian baptism, is represented by an act of any 
physical burial or natural planting. 



Chap. 3. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 235 

Q. 13. What must here be incontrovertibly es- 
tablished in order to prove immersion ? 

A. 1. That (Rom. vi: 3, &c.,) "So many of us as 
were baptized into Jesus Christ," means, were dip- 
ped into his name or person. 

2. That they of whom it is said that they were 
thus baptized, "were baptized into his death," 
means were immersed into that act of separation of 
soul and body. 

3. That wading into the water, and the adminis- 
trator then dipping only what yet remains of the per- 
son out of the water, is nevertheless a complete bu- 
rial, a total immersion of the whole person, as an 
act of the administrator, of having pift him all over 
under the water. 

4. That "Therefore we are buried with him 
[Christ] by baptism into death," means, that you, 

Romans, and I, Paul, while writing, "are buried 
with him," all at the same place and time, in the 
water, and that it was thus easier, more convenient, 
to write than to preach to them.. 

5. That "If we have been planted together in the 
likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness 
of his resurrection," means that 'If we [you and I] 
have been planted together,' in being sunk into the 
water, raised up, and placed on dry land, 'in the 
likeness of his death — [what a likeness to a separa- 
tion of soul and body!] — we [you and I] shall be 
also,' by the same likeness, 'planted together in 
likeness of his resurrection.' 

6. "That our old man is crucified with him, that 
the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth 
we should not serve sin^" means 'That our old maa 



236 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 5, 

[yours and mine] is' at this very place and time on 
the cross, 'crucified with him, [Christ,] that,' &c. 

7. That St. Paul and the Roman converts were su- 
pernatural beings, capable of living under water, 
and their old man at the same time dying on the 
cross!! 



SECTION II. 



"baptized for the dead." 



Q. 1. What truth or doctrine might be contained 
in 1 Cor. xv: 29? 

A. The resurrection of the dead. Therefore it 
is said; "Else what shall they do who are baptized 
[united to Christ as Head, and made subject to his 
doctrines through the baptism of the Holy Ghost] 
for the hope of the resurrection of the dead, if 
the dead rise not at all? why are they then [thus] bap- 
tized for the hope of the resurrection of the 
dead, [v. 13] if there be no resurrection of the 
dead? [v. 14] if Christ be not risen?" [V. 15.]— 
They must have been deluded; the doctrines false; 
[v. 17;] their faith vain, and they yet in their sins. 
[V. 19.] 

Q. 2. But how will you prove that baptize, in 
this passage, means spiritual, and not water bap- 
tism ? 

A. This is evident from the spiritual character of 
the text itself and the context. Had reference not 
solely been had to spiritual baptism, how could Paul, 
thus interrogatively, so argumentatively and so mas- 
terly, have put the results of their spiritual iuilu- 



€hap. S. CHRISTIAN BABTISM. 237 

«nce for the inspection of those to whom he wrote, 
by saying, [v, 30,] "Why stand we [you and I, as 
well as others] in jeopardy every hour, [v. 16,] 
if the dead rise not?" and then continue, [v. 31,] 
<C I protest by your rejoicing' which I have in Christ 
Jesus our Lord, I die daily '?" (Rom. viii: 36.) — 
This he could not have said of them nor himself, 
had he referred to water baptism, as this is not the 
result of water, but of spiritual baptism — conver- 
sion. 

Q. 3. But does he not say, [v. 34,] "Awake to 
righteousnes:" [v. 36 j "Thou fooli" evidently re- 
ferring to wicked persons ? 

A. That does not say that there were none con- 
verted but himself. That there may have been 
some wicked among them we do not deny. That 
there were, however, some pious, is also equally 
clear; and "as a wise master builder," he wrote for 
the spiritual benefit of all. 

Q. 4. What must here be established to 'prove 
immersion ? 

A. 1. That baptize, in this and every other in- 
stance, as has been so frequently tested, means noth- 
ing else than to immerse, sink, plunge, overwhelm, 
or dip. 

2. That we have no right, no, not even to draw an 
inference from, less to preach a sermon on the sub- 
ject of Christian baptism; so that we may avoid, in 
future, having among some of the hearers, so disa- 
greeable a stir of feeling, murmuring, &c, by no 
longer attempting the like. 



Part 3. SECTION III. 238 



THE SAME SUBJECT, RE-EXAMINED. 



Q. 1. What additional light may be thrown on 
this subject, by substituting certain words for others 
found in the translation ? 

A. That, we trust, which will prove satisfactorily: 

1. Rom.virl — 9, "How shall we, that are (dead) 
inanimate to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye 
not, that so many of us as were (baptized) converted 
into the likeness of Jesus Christ, were (baptized) con- 
verted into the likeness of his (death,) inanimation? 
Therefore we are (buried) hid (now, Col. iii: 3) 
with him by (baptism) conversion, (into death J 
through inanimation, that like as Christ was raised 
up from (the dead,) a state of inanimation, by the 
glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in 
newness of life. For if we have been planted to- 
gether by baptism or conversion, in the likeness of 
his (death,) inanimation, we shall be also in the 
likeness of his resurrection. Knowing this, that our 
(old man) depraved nature is (crucified) slain with 
(him) his human nature, that the body of sin might 
be destroyed, that henceforth we should not any 
longer serve sin. For he that is (dead) inanimate 
is free from sin. Now if we be (dead) inanimate 
with Christ (now) to sin, we believe that we shall 
also live with him," &c. 

2. Col. ii: 12, "Being (buried) hid with him in 
(baptism) conversion, wherein also ye are risen with 
him through the faith of the operation of God, who 
hath raised him from (the dead.) a state of inanima- 
tion." 

3. 1 Cor. xii: 13, "By one Spirit are we all (bap-- 



Chap. 3. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 239 

tized) converted into one body, whether we be Jews 
or Gentiles," &c. 

4. Gal. iii: 27, "For as many of you as have been 
(baptized) converted into the likeness of Christ, have 
put on the likeness of Christ." See v. 28, 29. 

5. 1 Cor. xv: 29, "Else what shall they do who 
are (baptized) converted for the hope of the resurrec- 
tion of the (dead) inanimate, if the (dead) inanimate 
rise not at all," &c. 

Q. 2. What is here, then, again, upon the whole, 
from this exhibition of these passages, plainly devel- 
oped ? 

A. Things entirely of a spiritual character; and 
hence they have nothing to do with with water bap- 
tism ? 

Q. 3. What must here be established to prove 
immersion ? 

A. 1, That the circumstances recorded in the Holy 
Scriptures, in every instance, of all the baptisms, and 
all the figures of instruction given on the subject, go 
to establish, positively, the mode or action to have 
been one that totally hid, or concealed beneath or 
under. 

2. That the above passages not only develope the 
mode or action of Christian baptism, but the manner 
of his interment; and that therefore we are scriptur- 
ally bound to have baptism administered accord- 
ingly. 



Parts. SECTION IV. 240 



IMMERSIONISTS IN SEARCH OF WATER — A SIGN CIVES 
IT WILL NOT ANSWER! 



Q. 1. But what do some of the Immersionists 
make of Rom. vi: 3, &c? 

A. This: "Know ye not, that so many of us as 
have been baptized into an acknowledgment of Jesus 
Christ, were baptized into an acknowledgment of his 
death?" But the query? how baptize, immerse or 
dip into an acknowledgment, into an act of mind — 
and that, too, of him who is to be ovenvhelmed, as 
they define the mode or action of administration ? — 
Impossible! Then, continue they, v. 4, "We have 
then been buried with him by baptism into an 
acknowledgment of his death." Why not into an 
acknowledgment of his burial! the thing designed 
to be established ? But unfortunately they dare not 
exchange "death" for "burial." 

Again, others supply v, 3, thus: "Know ye not, 
that as many of us as were baptized into the likeness 
of Jesus Christ, were baptized into the likeness of his 
death?" But is it not as difficult to plunge a person 
'into the likeness' or representation 'of Jesus Christ' 
as 'into the likeness' or representation 'of his death?' 
Then of course, v. 4, follows thus: "Therefore we 
are buried with him by baptism into the likeness of 
his death." Now, as the Apostle has not yet fur- 
nished them with water! it is death still ! 'To be 
buried with him by baptism into the likeness of his 
death,' then, is not, neither, into the likeness of 
Christ's baptism, no more than his burial. So sub- 
mersion then again appears as a mere cipher—* 
whim of the brain. 



Chap. 3. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 341 

As for the substitute, "immerse," in these 
Verses, for baptize, enough, we presume, and for 
come, perhaps, too much has already been said. 

Once more, its (Rom. vi: 4) parallel (Col. ii: 12) 
being supplied by " Having- been buried with him 
in baptism, wherein, in which rite^ or in which em- 
blem, ye are risen with him," will not help the mat-* 
ter on the side of immersion. For how, 'in which. 
rite,' or c 'm which emblem* of water baptism ? when 
this resurrection was accomplished "through the 
faith of the operation of God ?" Therefore, as al- 
ready seen, not performed by man. Then not a 
physical baptism, nor hence a physical resurrection; 
but each a spiritual act — a moral transaction. More- 
over, whereas the examination of the above passages 
is not the product of a physical action, the changes 
of the tenses are of no account. 

Q. 2. But what special scriptural reference will 
forever settle the design here sought to be carried ? 

A. That in Math, xii: 39— 41. This question- 
like a former one — c seeketh after a sign' — water — • 
in order to bury; and as then, so now, "there shall 
no sign be given it but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 
for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the 
whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days 
and three nights in the heart of the earth." This 
is then again a complete confutation of immersion. 
For as the burial of the blessed Savior, with the Im- 
mersionist, is of so much importance, is it not as 
necessary to observe the length of the time in the 
process of administration as any thing else, to make 
the mode or action of water baptism complete ?—- 
Most certainly — it cannot be otherwise. 

(k) 



CHAPTER IV. 



Testimony for the mode or action of christian 
baptism derived from several important sub- 
JECTS. 



SECTION I. 



The Three Witnesses. 1 John v: 8. 



Q. 1. What evidence for the mode or action of 
Christian Baptism does this passage afford? 

A. An application. For we are informed that 
there are "three that bear witness in earth — the 
Spirit and the Water and the Blood; and-' that 
(i these three agree in one." Now the Spirit and the 
Blood were poured out ; consequently the Water, in 
the administration of this rite, must also be poured 
out, in order that c these three- may ( agree in one.' 

Q. 2. What must here be established in order to 
confute this argument ? 

A. 1. That Water ceases to be a witness in Chris- 
tian baptism, when administered by an application; 
2. That an immersion witnesses a more consistent 
action with the action of the Spirit and Blood as 
poured ouj:, than the action of an application. 



SECTION II. 



THE LORD'S SUPPER. 



Q. 1. But if there be no other scriptural mode or 
action for Christian baptism than an application of 
water to the subject, do you not necessitate us to be 



Chap. 4. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 243 

precise in coming up to the exact scriptural posture 
in the reception of the Lord's Supper? 

A. By no means. The cases are not parallel. 
There is avast difference between the. posture of the 
subject, and the officiating- act of the administrator,' 
in either case. They are two entirely different 
things* The posture, then, on this subject can nei- 
ther be taken pro nor con. Nor have we found 
any thing to the point but St. Paul's case, 

Q. 2. What evidence, from the liability of man's 
"infirmity, as a guest to the Lord's Supper, have we 
for the posture of a subject for Christian baptism ? 

A. This: That as sickness, physical debility, 
loss of limbs, such as hands and feet, may fix the 
posture of a guest, and even deprive him from receiv- 
ing the elements, unless assisted; therefore, if oth- 
erwise qualified, it cannot deprive a person from 
being a worthy communicant, or invalidate the ordi- 
nance of the Lord's Supper: so that we are taught 
by all this that any possible posture in the subject, 
as the recipient of the action of the administration, 
in either ordinance, may not only be acceptable to 
God, but that, in either case, it has been entirely left 
to ourx)wn choice, and consequently is yet scriptur- 
ally correct: for nature and the Word of God go 
hand in hand— always harmonize. 

Q. 3. What argument does the nature of the 
Lord's Supper furnish for the proper scriptural mode 
or action of Christian baptism ? 

A. This will appear from an examination of 
facts: — 

1. It will be admitted by all, that it is right to ad- 
minister the Lord's Supper to the sick. Should it, 
however, require the reception of an ordinary meat 



844 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3, 

to constitute it an ordinance of this kind, then many 
would be deprived, in such a state, of the use of this 
means of grace; so that a small portion of bread and 
wine must have been intended to answer every pur- 
pose. 

2. It is also certain, that at the institution of the 
Lord's Supper, the portion of bread and wine must 
have been small. They were eating or had already 
eaten the entire Passover meal (Math, xxvi: 21 — 31; 
Mark xiv: 18—27; Luke xxii: 14—21) when the Lord 
Jesus instituted the Supper. What else does the 
Evangelist mean, when he says, Luke xxii: 20, 
"Likewise [he took] also the cup, after supper"? 
Certainly after the full meal (Ex. xii: 4) of the Paschal 
supper — after it (Luke xxii: 14) was eaten-~-the giv- 
ing then of the bread and the cup occurred — took 
place! This point, then, is established. 

3. We find in 1 Cor. xi: 20—23, that St. Paul ac- 
cused the Corinthians, among other things, of not 
having even eaten the Lord's Supper, because some 
had eaten and drunk too profusely. He therefore 
not only expresses himself with surprise, but with 
abhorrence: "What!" says he, "have ye not 
houses in which to eat and drink ? or dispise ye the 
Church of God ? " Then he gives them, v. 24, the 
necessary advice, by telling them, "If any man 
hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not to- 
gether unto condemnation."* [Judgment.] Thus, 
then, he evidently taught them that the Lord's Sup- 
per was not instituted to consist of much, but of 
little — not intended to satiate the appetite nor to 
sustain nature, but that it was purely religious; and 
that a small portion of bread and wine was all that 



Chap. 4. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 245 

was needed. Now if a small portion of bread and 
wine will constitute the validity of the Lord's Sup- 
per, who dare denonnce the validity of the ordi- 
nance of Christian baptism, because administered by 
a small quantity of water ? If the denunciation must 
rest on the one, because of the deficiency in quanti- 
ty, it must necessarily on the other. This, then, 
again, is the fruit of immersion! 

Q. 4. But why [if we do not deviate too far from 
the subject] is the Lord's Supper called a supper ? 

A. Because: — 1. Instituted in the evening, just 
after a supper — the Paschal feast. (Math, xxvi; 31, 
&c.) 2. It comes in room of the Passover, 1 Cor. v: 
7,) which was always celebrated in the evening.-— 
(Ex. xii: 6, 14, 24—28; Luke xxii: 14.) 

Q. 5. But why not then celebrate the Lord's 
Supper in the evening ? 

A. 1. Because we have no set time in the Holy 
Scriptures for such an observance, as was the case 
with the Passover. 

2. As Christians, however, we are, Math, v: 6, to 
u hunger and thirst after righteousness;" and as its 

frequent use is righteousness, therefore we are to 
do it often f even in remembrance of our blessed Re- 
deemer. (1 Cor. xi: 25.) Hence, then, as we are 
always to have this spiritual desire of mind — this 
longing of soul — .it may be celebrated at any place or 
time. 1. If possible, in the church, by day or night. 
2 Under sickness or infirmity, at home, at any hour 
of the twenty-four. 3. Whenever we have an op- 
portunity, and neglect its observance, we sin. (Math, 
xii: 30. 

3. All Jewish festivals and set times have been 



246 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part & 

abrogated. (Heb. vii: 12, 19; viii: 10; Col. ii: 14 
—18.) 

Q. 6. What must here be established to prove 
immersion ? 

A. As consistent, the inconistency that the valid- 
ity or non-validity of one of the ordinances of the 
New Testament depends upon the quantity of the 
article [water] in the use of the one, and not upon 
the quantity of the articles [bread and wine] in the 
use of the other. 



CHAPTER V. 



THE MATERIALS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES 
USED BY THE APOSTLES IN THE DEVELOPEMENT OF 
THE MODE OR ACTION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 



SECTION I. 



The Red Sea. Ex. xiv: 5—31; 1 Cor. x, 1 &c. 



Q. 1. What evidence for the mode or action of 
Christian baptism may be derived from 1 Cor. x: 1 — 
3, illustrated by the circumstances of the passage of 
the Israelites through the Red Sea ? 

A. An examination of the facts connected with 
that event will develope this matter. We will give 
the relation of the particulars as they took place: 

1. The Egyptians (Ex. xiv: 5 — 31) came in close 
pursuit of the Israelites some time late in the day or 
in the evening. The first thing that took place was, 
v. 19 — 21, "The cloud went from before the camp 
of Israel, and stood behind them," even M between 



Chap: 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 247 

the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel." 
This occurred on dry land — before the waters were 
divided. Here, then, and no where else, on this 
occasion, 1 Cor. x: 1, "Were" they "under the 
cloud," The next thing that took place, and that 
in the morning, was r v. 21, "The waters were di- 
vided." The instrument in this miraculous act of 
Divine Agency, was, v. 21, "A strong east wind," 
blowing "all that night," termed, Ex. xv: 8, "The 
blast of the nostrils" of Jehovah; which evidently 
kept up the division of the waters during the night. 
Thirdly we are informed, v. 22, "The children of 
Israel went into — the sea," and, v. 23, the Egyptians 
followed. Night came onj the one moved forward, 
the other pursued,* but, v. 20, the cloud became a 
pillar of fire to the one, and of darkness to the other; 
and thus it kept up a continual separation of the 
two, "so that the one came not near the other all 
the night." 

2. We will give the condition of the bottom of the 
sea. It is said, Ps. cvi: 9, The Lord "rebuked the 
Red Sea — and it was dried yp: so he led them 
through the depths as through the wilderness." — 
Again, Isa. lxiii: 1 1 — 14, Who "led them through the 
deep, as a horse in the wilderness, that they should 
not stumble." 

3. Let us give the state of the waters on each 
side: We are told, v. 22, 29, "The waters were a 
wall unto them on their right hand and on their left." 
Again, that these were frozen: Ex. xv: 8: "The 
depths were congealed in the heart of the sea." — 
This must mean, "the depths" of the walls of water 
"were congealed," even to the heart or seat, [for 
heart frequently means seat] of the bottom of th$ 



248 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

walls in the sea. The conclusion then is, and there 
can be no other, than that this passage through the 
Red Sea was as good, and as free from all obstruc- 
tion, as the course oftheirjourney in the wilderness. 
The way then before, the direction they were travel- 
ing, and the place overhead were all the time open. 
Nor would God divide the waters and then close 
them up; so that all the circumstances go to confute 
every thing like the idea of an overwhelming. 

Q. 2. But is it not said, 1 Cor, x: 2, "They were 
all baptized — in the cloud and in the sea?" 

A. This is readily reconcilable. Circumstances 
related in one part of the Bible, and then again ex- 
pressed in other places, although frequently appa- 
rently obscure and contradictory to the English 
reader, nevertheless cannot, and never do contradict 
each other. If they appear so in a version, it is en- 
tirely owing to an oversight of the translators, or to 
the barrenness of the language into which they have 
been rendered: for we must not forget that the 
Hebrew and Greek are richer and more full in mean- 
ing and shades of expression, than the words of mod- 
ern langnuges. An oversight has here occurred, 
and we want no better rule to rectify it than the cir- 
cumstances in Ex. xiv: 5-^31. These have been 
given above: but not until previously having been 
carefully and minutely examined. This is always, 
under every consideration, absolutely and essentially 
necessary, before we make any attempt of the kind. 
As, however, the Israelites were neither in the 
cloud, nor in the waters of the sea, the circumstances 
then warrant this as the only true and unexception- 
able rendering: "They were all baptized — -[en] with 
the cloud and [en] with the sea," 



Chap. 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 249 

Q. 3. But how then and when were they bap- 
tized ? 

A. As they were at this time travelling directly 
east, and an eastern wind was blowing directly 
west, and the cloud and the sea still before them, 
they were baptized by an application of the vapour 
and dampness from these two sources, carried on 
them by the instrumentality of the wind. After the 
cloud had arrived behind them, and whilst they were 
about to, and had entered the passage through the 
sen, until they had nearly arrived on the opposite 
bank, the continuation of the application was kept 
up from the sea. "Thus then there were two sources 
from which the small, and it may be, in part, invis- 
ible particles originated; but there were not two 
baptisms, but only one. Thus then we have a com- 
plete type [these baptisms] of the antitype, [Chris- 
tian baptism,] and the mode or action of Christian 
baptism developed. 

Q. 4. But was there not, Ps. lxxvii: 14, &c, how- 
ever, a copious rain while they passed through the 
sea ? 

A. Even more. Four things (v. 17, IS) are par- 
ticularly specified: 

1. "The skies sent out a sound" — the thunder; 

2. "Thine arrows went abroad" — the lightnings; 

3. "The clouds poured out water" — the rain; 

4. "The earth trembled and shook" — the earth.- 
quake. 

But all this must have taken place at the closing 
up of the waters upon the Egyptians: so that thi» 
goes to warrant the preceding examination of cir- 
cumstances and facts to be correct. 

(eS) 



250 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

Q. 5. Did, however, the cloud of which we read 
in 1 Cor.x: 1 — 3, actually contain water? 

A. Certainly. St. Paul must have meant just 
what he said, when he expressed himself in the 
language of this text: "Were all baptized — [en] with 
the cloud and [en] with the sea:" that is, with 
water from the cloud and from the sea. For it 
could not be supposed that a commissioned (Acts ix: 
15 — 17) Apostle, who was in the habit (1 Cor. i: 14, 
16) of baptizing with water, would refer to a thing 
destitute of that element, to represent water bap- 
tism in the Christian church, had the cloud contain- 
ed no water. Moreover, the cloud that led the way 5 
• (Neh. ix: 19,) and which overshadowed Israel (Ps. 
cv: 39) while on their journey from Egypt to Canaan, 
must not only have been designed for shade, under 
the searching rays of a burning clime, but also to 
moisten the surrounding atmosphere, for the com- 
fort and health of the children of Israel. Hence it 
must have contained aqueous matter: — thus far a 
natural cloud. 

Q. G. What must here be fully established to 
prove immersion ? 

A. 1. That God had no design in influencing St. 
Paul to make the expression, "They were all bap- 
tized — -with the cloud and with the sea," in teach- 
ing us, among other things, the mode or action of 
Christian baptism. 

2. That the Israelites were as effectually immers- 
ed, sunk, overwhelmed or dipped, during their jour- 
ney in the wilderness, as they were in their passage 
through the sea. 

3. That after Gnd had divided the waters in order 
to afford a free passage, he nevertheless closed it up 



Chap. 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 251 

before, behind, and overhead, to overwhelm them; 
and that this mode or action is an exact figure of, and 
corresponds with a dip or plunge all over into 
water. 

4. That the circumstances in Ex. xiv: 5 — 31, do 
not define the word baptize, in 1 Cor. x: 2, as used 
in the rite of Christian baptism, to mean an applica- 
tion of the water to the subject, but an immersion. 

6. That the definition of baptize, derived from 
some other source than the Bible, in defining the 
mode or action of this rite, is vastly superior to that 
which God himself gives in his Word. 

6. That they did not pass over (( on the dry land." 
Neh. ix: 11. 



SECTION II. 



NOAH'S ARK. 



Q. 1. What evidence have we in 1 Pet. iii: 20 — ■ 
22, for the mode or action of Christian baptism ? 

A. That of a comparison between Noah's ark 
and the rite of this ordinance. It is said of this ark, 
"Wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by wa- 
ter," in connection with the attending circumstan- 
ces, that they are "The like figure [the type, those 
baptisms,] wlicreunto, even baptism [the antitype, 
Christian baptism,] doth also now save us — by the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ." 

Q. 2. What is the comparison like, and the de- 
sign of God in referring us to these facts ? 

A. Both exceedingly striking. The ark (Gen> 
vi,* 14 &c; vii: 1 &c.,) was so constructed, and mad» 



252 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part. 3. 

of such material, that the persons it contained were 
designed to be delivered and saved from a watery 
grave. It was built on dry land, and never launched 
from stocks into a stream, bay or gulf, sea or ocean: 
but when completed, the rains descended on it, and 
the waters flowed to it, and thus it fled from the tor- 
rents rolling along on the earth until it arose to its 
extreme height, all the time sprinkled and washed 
by an application of water, descending on or driven 
against its sides. Now Christ, the Great Ark of our 
safety, was also driven by the wrath of God, for the 
salvation of sinners, represented by the flood, to the 
height of his primitive glory, even his resurrection 
from the dead, and his ascension into heaven: so 
it is certain, that as the ark never was launched, so 
he never was immersed, but sprinkled and washed 
by John, his harbinger, when he entered the minis- 
try. And as the ark carried the persons it contained, 
and delivered them from a watery grave, termed 
'the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also 
now save us — by the resurrection of Jesus Christ;' 
bo the doctrines and the rite of this ordinance of the 
blessed Savior, the Ark of our safety, must also nat- 
urally have been designed by God to teach us to 
dread, flee and be carried away from a watery grave 
.or an immersion: but yet, nevertheless, to yield to a 
proper, rational and scriptural administration of thia 
rite, by an application of water to our person. 

Q. 3. But was not, however, Noah surrounded 
and covered, and completely hid in the ark, with 
water beneath, around, dashed against, and falling 
on it; and thus still overwhelmed ? 

A. How that an application can be a representa- 
tion of an overwhelming, less of a dip or plunge all 



Chap 5. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. %3j 

over into the water; and that perhaps only once, or 
as others would have it, at most only thrice, are dif- 
ficulties which no man living can reconcile with this 
figure of instruction given. 

Q. 4. But was not Noah and his family, by en- 
tering the ark, completely dead and buried to the 
world, and by leaving it, arose to a still better, and 
hence to a new life ? 

A. It was not, then, the waters which rendered 
him and his thus dead and buried to a wicked world, 
but the ark. So must ours, Christ, whom we visibly 
enter by water baptism. As to then having the ark, 
cannot represent a resurrection from a watery grave, 
as they had never been in those waters; but thereby 
we are taught that we must remain in Christ, his 
doctrines and grace, until safely carried over the 
conflicting waters of this vain and transitory life, to 
a new and better world, [Heaven.] 

Q. 5. What, however, do you make of the ap- 
plication of the water being first made to the ark on 
dry ground ? 

A. Even this: As the water was then to answer 
a two-fold purpose, even as an engine of destruction 
to the antediluvians, and as a saving means to Noah: 
and moreover, as we have, at our baptism, no 
flood to anticipate, and as then no lives are to be de- 
stroyed, we are taught that a less quantity will an- 
swer, and that the rite of Christian baptism may not 
only be administered on dry ground, but with little 
water, but even in the house of God. 

Q. 6. But can you more fully establish all this ? 

A. Readily: There certainly must have been a 
way, notwithstanding (Gen. vi: 14) h the water-proof 
state of the ark, by which fresh air must have been 



554 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

continually admitted into it, or the death of all 
would evidently have been the result, long before 
the expiration (Gen. viii: 3) of one hundred and fifty 
days. Thus, then, by this instrumentality, there 
must really have been an application of small, invis- 
ible aqueous particles to each person respectively. 
Moreover, we are not externally and visibly in our 
Ark-, the Lord Jesus, until we are baptized. 

Q. 7. What must here be fully established in or- 
der to prove immersion ? 

A. 1. That St. Peter had no reference to the cir- 
cumstances connected with the ark and the deluge. 

2. That the word baptism, in this passage, means 
a total immersion, defined by its being 'the like 
figure' of the ark having been plunged or dipped all 
over into water. 

3. That God did not design to teach us any thing 
on the subject of Christian baptism; and the reason, 
that inspiration still directed St. Peter to refer to 
that memorable deliverance, affirming that it was 
c The like figure wfiereunto, even baptism doth also 
now save us, 5 &c. 



CHAPTER VI. 



THE APOSTLE'S OWN PERSONAL PRACTICE FOR THE 
MODE OR ACTION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, AS GIVEN 
THROUGH THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE VARIOUS 
CASES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



SECTION I. 



The Three Thousand. Acts ii: 1 &c. 



Q. 1. What is the contents of Acts ii: 1 &c? 

~A. Among other important facts, the wonder- 
working power of God, wrought upon the disciples 
of the Lord Jesus, through the Holy Ghost, which 
the Savior himself compares, Actsi: 1 — 6, with wa- 
ter baptism. 

Q. 2. Does not the phrase in v. 2, "It filled all 
the house where they were sitting," prove the mode 
or action of Chrirtian baptism to have been an im- 
mersion ? 

A. By no means. It was sound and not the Holy 
Spirit that "filled all the house." A denial af this 
would say, that we were not able to distinguish be- 
tween sound and Spirit. But nevertheless if sound 
must still here be taken for the Holy Spirit, to make 
out the mode or action of baptism to mean an im- 
mersion, then we are not astonished at the empty 
sounds, the agitated air of words, so frequently heard 
in attempting to prove this watery theory ! 

Q. 3. What testimony for the mode or action of 
baptism, does the 4th verse afford ? 

A. That which completely confutes immersion. 
For it is there said, "They were n\T filled with the 
Holy Ghost." If a thing then is filled, and only 



%5$ CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 5. 

filled, as the result of an action, it is certain it is 
not surrounded; and consequently neither immersed 
nor overwhelmed. To settle, however, forever the 
action of these baptisms, we have the testimony of 
St. Peter, [v. 33,] who states, that all that then had 
been seen and heard, God Lad "shed forth." 

Q. 4. Were those [v. 41] of the three thousand, 
water or spiritual baptisms ? 

A. Water baptisms. It could not have been oth- 
erwise. They had been, [*. 27] upon inquiry what 
to do, directed [v. 28] not only to repent, but also 
to be baptized. Upon these conditions they had the 
promise "of the remission of sin," &c. If there 
was a non-compliance, then there was no remission: 
and hence it could never have been said, that "they 
that gladly rectived his word [v. 3S] were baptized: 
and the same day there were added unto them about 
three thousand souls." 

Q. 5. Do the circumstances of these baptisms- 
favor immersion ? 

A. They dp not. It was when St. Peter com- 
menced his sermon, "the third hour of the day," 
[v. 15,] or 9 o'clock: A. M. 1. Then let us allow 
two hours; lirst, to preach his sermon; [v. 11 — 40:] 
secondly, to answer the questions [v. 37J which 
were proposed; thirdly, for the time occupied in 
presenting them. Let us here too remember, they 
could not all have made the inquiry at once, and yet 
have heen understood, nor that one could have spo- 
ken for all. 

2. Let us give him one hour — first, to make [v. 40] 
his numerons speeches in testimony of the truth, 
and secondly the many exhortations delivered on 
the occasion. 



Chap. £ CHRISTIAN BABTISM. 257 

.3. It must have taken one half hour to have taken 
refreshment: for surely he could not have labored 
all day without something to eat and drink 1 

4. It took at least one half hour to have separated 
the candidates for baptism from the multitude. By 
this time then, it was one o^clock, P. M. The Jewish 
day terminated at six; so there were onlyjive hours 
left to be employed in baptizing this vast multitude. 
Now, by calculation, it will be seen that each Apos- 
tle had but one minute and twelve seconds to baptize 
each subject. This was impossible to have been ac- 
complished in any other way than by an application 
of water to the individual, or candidate for baptism- 
It must not be forgotten, too, on the supposition, that 
had it been possible to have immersed them, that 
neither the Apostles nor the multitude knew that 
any baptisms were to have been administered. — 
Hence no preparations had been made. Whence 
then the time in obtaining bathing-clothes ? Cer- 
tain it is, the Apostles did not carry such a vast 
number with them. Whence the time in preparing 
places to change their garments ? Surely the change 
was not made in the presence of a promiscuous mul- 
titude, in presence of males and females; less that 
they should have immersed them naked ! Would it 
not have been certain death, and disease, to at least 
some, had they immersed them in their ordinary 
garments? Would it not, in addition to all this, 
have been a very grotesque figure, to have "remain- 
ed on the ground, or returned to their lodgings, in 
their wet clothes, soaked and dripping from head to 
feet V 9 Would not also human nature have been ex- 
hausted, had the Apostles heen found five hours 
waist-deep in water ? and would not death have 



268 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

swept them away ? The circumstances then, con- 
nected with the baptisms of the three thousand, go 
not in favor of immersion, but in an entire confuta- 
tion thereof. 

Q. 6. But might not the rest of the Apostles have r 
at the same time, either been preaching or answer- 
ing questions proposed, or have attended to both, as 
the nature of things required ? 

A. Not without confusion, or a division of the 
multitude into as many assemblages as there were 
speakers. Moreover, the relation of facts, [v. 14,] 
after the third hour, goes to show that all that was 
said and done on this occasion, took place on the- 
spot, and in the presence of each other. 

Q. 7. But could an audience of about four thou- 
sand, be intelligibly addressed by but one speaker ? 

A. We think they might, and particularly on 
such an inreresting occasion as that of the Pente- 
costal outpouring of the Holy Spirit. All was inter- 
esting — amazing — so they would naturally close up 
to the speaker, as close as possible; and how readily 
might not a standing- multitude, of even a larger 
number, be thus profitably addressed. That, how- 
ever, the rest may, in turn, and when it did not pro^ 
duce disorder, or a hindrance to the work, have- 
aided, is naturally inferred. [V. 37. J 

Q. 8. But where might this have taken place ? 

A. Neither in an upper room, nor in the temple. 
The idea of either is excluded upon the authority of 
the following facts: It is said, (Acts ii: 1)— -1. That 
"they were all— in one place," which is particularly 
stated to have been [v. 2] a house: hence (Acts i: 
13) not an upper room, the former place of resort. 

%. We are informed (Acts ii: 6) that "when this 



Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 259 

[?. 4, the speaking with other tongues] was noised 
abroad, the multitude came together;" and after ha- 
ving heard the Apostles [v. 9 — 12] speak in every 
language, they [v. 7,8, 11, 13] made, some such, 
and others other remarks; upon which St. Peter im- 
mediately replies, rectifies the gainsayersj [v. 15) 
and proceeds with his sermon, and thus incidentally 
gives the time of the stated morning prayers iu the 
temple — the third hour of the day, or nine o'clock. 
This then gives the assemblage of the multitude at 
the house of the Apostles long before the hour of 
prayer, and consequently not at the temple. These 
things followed in succession until [v. 41] the labors 
of the day were completed. After some time had 
elapsed, [v. 4:2] and some business for the welfare 
of the church was accomplished, [v. 44 — 46] we 
read [v. 46] and not before, that the church had ac- 
cess to the use of the temple as a place of worship* 
The only natural conclusion then is, that all that 
took place on the day of Pentecost, was done sepa- 
rately and apart from the temple. But as the house 
occupied by the Apostles must have been too small 
for the accommodation of the multitude, their min- 
isterial functions must have been performed in some 
open place, or in the streets of the city. 

Q. 9. But had they not, at the temple of Jerusa- 
lem, bathing accommodations, such as bathing- 
clothes, cisterns, &c, had they had access to them ? 

A. The Evangelist gives no such information. 
If, too, on the supposition they had, at any other 
previous time, still that does not prove they always 
had, and that they had at that time. That also 
which they may perhaps then have had for the ac- 
commodation of the priests, was for that identical 



260 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Pari 3- 

purpose, and for no other. Therefore, if they migh* 
have been accommodated, it must not only be shown* 
that those articles would then really have been at 
their disposal, but that they would have actually felt 
disposed to have used them as articles of accommo- 
dation,, and that the three thousand could have really 
been immersed in those cisterns. As, too, no wa- 
ter, stream, river or pond, is so much as named, or 
even intimated,, although such a vast number of can- 
didates, even such an amount of subjects is given:, 
and that if ever the Apostles had occasion to speak 
of a sufficiency of water, of bathing-elothes, of places 
of change, had they practised immersion, one was 
then given: hence from their silence on these sub- 
jects, we conclude, we can do nothing else, thai* 
that submersion is not the scriptural mode or action 
of administering Christian baptism. 

Q. 10. But were there not, even before the de- 
scent of the Holy Spirit, (Acts i: 15,) one hundred 
and twenty disciples together r and therefore as many 
administrators;, and thus might not the three thou- 
sand have been baptized in a much less time ? 

A. Matters of fact will unravel this question: 

1. Christ, out of all his disciples, chose twelve,, 
whom he called Apostles- Luke vi: 13. 

2. Out of this number one [Judas Iscariot] by 
transgression forfeited this station- Acts i: 16 — 2§* 

3. The eleven, after Christ's resurrection, on a 
sertain occasion, were gathered together in a certain, 
place. Luke xxiv: 33. 

4. There we find Christ appeared. (V. 34 — 3?.) 

5. From this place he led the eleven out as far as- 
Bethany, (v. 50,) on a certain mountain, Math 
ixtiiU 16, termed OliveU Acts i: 12... 



c €lia P . 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 261 

6. There Christ commissioned them, Math, xxvii: 
19, 20, and none eht. 

7. Then he appointed Jerusalem as the place 
where they were to tarry until endowed with power 
from on high. Luke xxiv: 49. 

8. Then when he had blessed them, he was part* 
ed from them and carried up to heaven. [V. 51.] 

The commission of the eleven, the appointment a-t 
Jerusalem, Christ's ascension, and the compliance of 
the Apostles with the appointment at Jerusalem, we 
have also in substance recorded in Acts i: 1 — 14.—= 
Whilst thus, then, tarrying there in expectation of 
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, termed, Acts i: 5, 
a baptism, a selection (v. 15 &c.) was made of Mat- 
thias, whom (v. 26) they "numbered withjhe eleven 
Apostles." Hence Matthias, by a Divine impulse 
in the Apostle Peter, was brought to have conferred 
upon him (v. 25) the ministry and (v. 20) bishopric, 
or office of Judas Iscariot, and (Math, xxviii: 19, 20) 
the same commission which was conferred on the 
eleven; and thus rendered aqual with the rest of the 
Apostles. Before it can then be said that there 
were rrTore than twelve who officiated in the admin- 
istration of the baptisms of the three thousand, it 
must be scripturally proven that more than the twelve 
were commissioned. Thus, then, neither the sev* 
enty disciples, (Luke x: 1) nor any others, were cho- 
sen, neither commissioned with the twelve: nor had 
any but the Apostles the promise, as an officiating 
ministry, of receiving power from on high, through 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost. We also know that 
St. Paul's advice to Timothy, (1 Tim. v: 22,) was to 
"lay hands suddmly on ne man;" and that (iii: 6) 



262 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

cc a novice" was not a proper candidate for the min- 
istry. It is then indisputabie that there were twelve, 
and only twelve administrators. (Acts ii: 14.) 

Q. 11. But does not the fact that St. Peter, Acts 
ix: 48, comanded subjects to be baptized, go to 
prove that the Apostles had power to confer the act 
of administration on others? 

A. That they were invested with this power, we 
do not deny. That only twelve were at this time 
commissioned, we have undeniably established. 
That whether we have, or have no information, pre- 
viously to the baptisms at Cernelius' house, that the 
Apostles had, or had not set some apart for the min- 
istry, is of little consequence. One thing is certain: 
that if the twelve (Acts xi: 1 — 7) made provision for 
a proper selection of men, even "of honest report, 
and full of the Holy Ghost," and set them apart by 
imposition of hands, merely to serve at tables, then 
surely they would not confer the act of administer- 
ing Christian baptism on any one, on one not com- 
missioned and set apart for the ministry. It is then 
again not only certain that the twelve baptized the 
three thousand, but that those who baptized at 
Cornelius' house had been, on some previou* occa- 
sion, invested with ministerial functions. 

Q. 12. What must here be undeniably established 
to prove immersion ? 

A. 1. That preaching, proposing questions, and 
answering them, could all at once be done by all, 
and at the same place. 

2. That all this took place in the temple at Jeru- 
salem. 

3, That they had access to streams or cisterns, 
with a sufficient depth of water to immerse. 



Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 263 

4. That there were more than twelve administra- 
tors. 

5. That they had bathing-clothes, where the chang- 
es of raiment were made, or whether they were 
dipped naked, or in their ordinary garments. 

C That the three thousand were really immersed. 
7. The reason that nothing is said about water and 
other accommodations. 



SECTION II, 



THE BAPTISE OF THE SAMARITANS. 



Q. What light, for the proper mode or action of 
Christian baptism, do the baptisms (Acts viii: 5 — 25) 
of the Samaritans afford ? 

A. Not any in favor of immersion. The silence 
of the inspired Penman on the subject of 'a sufficiency 
of water said proper depth, of going out to a stream, 
of making dams and hewing cisterns, of obtaining 
bathing-clothes and places for changing garments, 
all go to prove that the modern practice of some 
greatly varies from apastolic usage, and the shrip- 
tural mode of administering Christian baptism, 



SECTION III. 



THE BAPTISM OF THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH. 

Q. 1. Does not, however, the baptism of the 
Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts viii: 26 — 40) prove immer- 
sion ? 

A. The passage in Acts viii: 38 — 40, the case of 



££4 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part & 

the Eunuch, " They went down both into the water- 
both Philip and the Eunuch j and he baptized him. 
And when they were come up out of the water," &c. y 
proves too much to prove immersion. If 'they went 
down both into the water,' one was as deep in a* 
the other: so that if this is to prove the immersion 
of the Eunuch, it must necessarily prove the immer- 
sion of Philip. Moreover, we have already seen, 
that this passage might have been translated, "They 
went both [eis] to or unto the water, both Phil- 
ip and the Eunuch; and he baptized him. And 
when they were come [ex] from the water," &c. 
But again, the passage m^y be read thus: "They went 
down both [eis] for [the One as administrator and the 
other as candidate] the water," &c., "and when 
they were come up [ex] from the water," &c. The 
correctness of both or either of these renderings 
obviates the idea of a double immersion, expressed 
by the phrase, 'They went down both into the water, 7 
and thus frees Philip from the incorrect and absurd 
practice [if an Immersionist] of immersing himself, 
whenever he immersed another; which must other- 
wise always have been the case, if we take the pass- 
age as it is, to prove immersion. Here, then, again, 
we find that immersion is a water system; and yet 
there cannot be found a sufficiency of water in all 
the scriptures, to sustain it. 

Q. 2. But does not v. 36 prove that where Philip 
baptized the Eunuch, there was quite an abundance 
of water ? 

A. Not at all, but the reverse. The expression, 
"They came unto a certain water," proves nothing 
as to the quantity or depth of the water, and there- 



Chap. fc CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. &#* 

fore nothing in favor of immersion. "Epi ti hudor," 
"unto a certain water," may as correctly, and even, 
more so, be translated to some water, or to a Utile 
water. "Ti — has sometimes a diminutive sense,. 
and so here." Again, in the phrase, "See here is, 
water," the translators have supplied the words 
"here is." This is known to the reader, because 
they are italicised. In the original, we have, how- 
ever, nothing more for ( see here is water, 9 than idou 
hudor, behold water! "W~e then see this is language 
of emotion: consequently the surprise of the Eunuch, . 
It appears that he did not expect it. . That they 
should have come to water, had not occupied his 
mind. With this view, then, of the passage, we 
can correctly read: "And as they went on their 
way, they came [epi ti hudor] to some, or a little 
water, and the Eunuch said,. .["Idou hudor!"] Be- 
hold water! what doth hinder me to be baptized?" 
To attempt, then, to prove immersion from this 
passage, is a mere caprice ! 

Q. 3. What further light does the original throw 
on this subject ? 

A. That which is directly to the point. The ap- 
propriate Greek word used to emerge, or rise up out 
of water, is anaduo. This word is not used in v. 39. 
The Greek word there is anebesan, from ana, in 
composition up, and baino, go away — expressing an 
action not of rising up out of water, "but of ascen- 
ding or mounting trees, horses, hills, &c." [See 
the Greek, Math, v: 1; Luke xix: 3.] Again, katt- 
besan, from kaia, in composition, downwards, and 
baino, go, used in v. 38, means not to enter water, 
but expresses an action to the water; so that this ai- 



2*6 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Pari 3 

so not only goes again to prove positively that eis, 
in v. 38, should have been rendered to, unto, or for, 
instead of in or into, but that ex, in v. 39, when 
translated from, is correct. It moreover, also, 
again decides the fact, that the Eunuch never was 
immersed. [See the Greek, Math, iii: 16; Mark i: 
10.] . 

Q. 4. But what does an examination of the cir- 
cumstances connected with the baptism of the Eu- 
nuch develope? 

A. That the water to which they accidentally 
came, was not of sufficient quantity and depth to 
have admitted of an immersion. Take-the generally 
received translation, and this is inferred from the 
following circumstances: 1. Philip and the Eunuch 
were entire strangers. 2. They had met in a soli- 
tary place. [V. 26.] 3. The Eunuch was far from 
home. [V. 27.] 4. He had a chariot, and certainly 
as much., if not more money, as would bear his ex- 
penses. [V. 28 — 32.] Now, under this state of 
things, can we suppose Philip to have preached im- 
mersion? [v. 35,] less that the Eunuch would have 
invited him to have baptized him, if the stream had 
been a large and deep water? Might he not have 
arrived at the thought of a deep-laid design in Philip 
to have intended to have thus taken his life, and 
then his property — his chariot and money? Those 
that can believe the reverse of this, can believe 
any thing, if only in favor of immersion. It was 
ihen only a very small stream. 

It may, however, here be said, the Eunuch was 

a better man than this. But be that as it may, aa 

good, and perhaps even better men than he, under 

* arently less dangerous circumstances, have exer- 
Pp 



Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 267 

cised suspicion. And it is perfectly right to beware 
of deception; for we know not where Satan may not 
be concealed, under the sanctimonious garb of re- 
ligion. Is it not unaccountable, too, on the suppo- 
sition that it might have been a case of immersion, 
that it could have been accomplished, unless in a 
state of perfect nakedness, or in his ordinary gar- 
ments, as neither knew that any thing of the like was 
to take place. Again, the circumstance itself, that 
any water will answer for baptism with which we 
may accidentally meet, as was the case with Philip 
and the Eunuch, is sufficient of itself to confute im- 
mersion: because it excludes the idea of a sufficient 
quantity and depth of water as necessary for an im- 
mersion. 

Q. 5. What Jjien must be shown, as connected 
with this case, the Eunuch's baptism, to prove im- 
mersion? 

A. 1. That eis does not, in v. 38, mean to, unto 
or for, and ex, from, and that into means under. 

2. That in v. 36, some, or a little water, or "a cer- 
tain water," means a sufficient depth of water to im- 
merse a person. 

3. That the mode or action, connected with the 
circumstances of the Eunuch's case, if his baptism 
was administered by immersion, could create no 
suspicion in the Eunuch's mind, that Philip had no 
ill design. 

4. If the Eunuch was immersed, that he had a 
change of raiment; whether he changed it, was 
baptized naked, or whether he rode in his chariot in 
his wet garments. 

5. The reason of the silence on the subject of 
bathing accommodations. 



tm SECTION IV. Partt. 



THE BAPTISM OF ST. PAUL. 



Q. 1. What testimony for the mode or action of 
Christian baptism do the circumstances of St. Paul'i 
baptism (Acts ix: 10 — 20) afford? 

A. These: As Ananias [v. 17] "entered into 
the house" [v. 11] of Judas of Damascus, in order to 
meet Saul, and as St. Paul [v. 18] was immediately 
restored to sight, baptized and [v. 19] refreshed, by 
having received nourishment, without the least inti- 
mation given, previously to these facts having taken 
place, or the least room left from which to draw an 
inference, that either of them had withdrawn from 
the house, it is certain that this was house-baptism, 
or baptism administered in the house, tyloreover, the 
word [v. 18; xxii: 16] anastas, arose, does not ex- 
press a motion to, but j,n a place; and therefore 
means no more here than that Saul stood up: so that 
it is undeniable, where he arose, he remained station- 
ary until baptized. This is clear, from the use of the 
word in Mark xiv: 60, "The high priest [anastas'] 
stood up in the midst," &c; and from the fact that 
when motion to a place is intended there is always an- 
other word used in connection with anastas, express- 
ing that motion or rest to that place. For example, 
Math, ix: 9, "And he [anastas] arose andjbllotved 
him." Luke xv: 18, "I will [ayiastas] arise and go 
to my father." V. 20, "And he [anastas] arose and 
came to his father/' Acts ix: 39, "Then Peter [an- 
astas] arose and went with them." This case then 
goes to prove that there is no necessity of a stream, 
pond or cistern of water, and that baptism can be 
administered in a house, while the candidate for 
baptism is in a stayiding* stationary posture; a»d 



(Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 269 

hence must be administered by an application of wa- 
ter to the subject; and that consequently, a falling, 
applied posture of the person to the water, is absurd 
and unscriptural. 

Q. .2. What then must be shown, as connected 
with the circumstances of St. Paul's baptism, to 
prove immersion ? 

A. 1. That St. Paul's baptism was not adminis- 
tered in a house: and when this is done, if immersed, 
in what; and then that the water was of sufficient 
quantity and deptn. 

2. That anastas, in v. 18, 'arose, 9 stood up, means 
to go out to a stream or pond, in order to be immers- 
ed. 

3. That Ananias really, while St. Paul was in a 
standing position, dipped him all over in water; 
that he had changes of raimant; that he exchanged 
them, and where this was done; and if that he had no 

•change of clothing, whether he was baptized naked; 
and whether he ate [v. 19] with his wet garments 
on, "soaked and dripping from head to feet," or 
waited [v. 10] until they were dry, before he took 
refreshment. 

4. The reason that nothing is said about baptismal 
accommodations. 



SECTION V. 



BAPTISMS AT CORNELIUS' HOUSE. 



Q. 1. What do you make of the baptisms (Acts 
jk: xi: 19) at Cornelius' house ? 

A. This: As St. Peter and six brethren are said 



270 CHRISTIAN BABTISM Part 3. 

(Acts x: 25 — 28 xi: 12) to have gone into Cornelius' 
house; and that after [v. 27 — 34] a friendly inter- 
course, St. Peter's [v. 34 — 44] preaching the out- 
pouring [v. 44 — 47J of the Holy Spirit, and the ad- 
ministration [v. 47 &c] of the baptisms had taken 
place, without any intimation, or the least notice 
given, that any left the house, we conclude, we 
cannot do otherwise, than that those baptisms must 
also have been administered on the spot, in the house. 
This then furnishes us again another specimen of 
house-baptisms. Again, from the design of St. Peter, 
in attempting to allay the caveling that might other- 
wise have arisen against his intention to baptize those 
Gentiles, particularly among those Jews then pres- 
ent, we have an important fact revealed on the mode 
of Christian baptism. In order to make his duty 
clear and satisfactory — as conclusive as possible — he 
proposed to his brethren this question: [v. 47:] — 
'•'Can any man [the most rigid Jew] forbid water, 
that these should not be baptized, who have receiv- 
ed the Holy Ghost as well as we ?" He intended 
to say by this, God has acknowledged them: dare we 
(Acts xi: 17 — 19) reject them ? Notice, too, what he 
further says in reference to their prejudices: "Can 
any m&n forbid water?" He does not say,, can any 
of you Jews forbid them [these Gentiles] to be con- 
ducted, out to a stream or a pond, or a cistern 
to be brought, but water. He then speaks, not of 
moving the candidates, but the water. Yet who 
would here be so awfully stupid as to suppose that 
he intended to have a cistern with water brought into 
their midst in order to immerse them ! Any school- 
boy may also know, that St. Peter meant that "no 
man can forbid water" to be brought, [and that, 



Chap. 6, .CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Z"n 

too, in a reasonable way, not in stone troughs, tubs 
and buckets,"] "that these should be baptized." — 
When, therefore, the creeds, supported by prejudice, 
sophistry, and learned lore, are exploded by the 
common sense of boys, it is high time that those sys- 
tems should sink into oblivion. Let us not here for- 
get, that neither St. Peter nor the candidates knew, 
any more than the Apostles and Jews on the day of 
Pentecost, the Samaritans, &c, that baptism would 
be administered. Whence, then, in all the cases 
examined, the preparation in the accommodation for 
immersions? To reconcile all these difficulties with 
apostolic practice, and the nature of St. Peter's lan- 
guage, [v. 47,] we are compelled to conclude, that 
immersion is out of the question: and hence an ap- 
plication of water must have been the mode or action 
of administration. 

Q. 2. What must here be undeniably established 
to prove immersion ? 

A. 1. That they went out of the house to a stream- 
pond or pool, and that they found the water sum", 
ciently deep to immerse: or that they had a cistern 
with water sufficiently large and deep to overwhelm 
the candidates for baptism; and that it was easier to 
move the cistern to the subjects than for the subjects 
to walk to the cistern!! 

2. That they had bathing-clothes, changed their 
apparel > or were baptized naked, or in their ordinary 
garments. 

3-. That the overwhelming was entire — complete. 

4. The principle upon which immersion may be 
practised, without ever an intimation given about 
bathing accommodations. 



272 SECTION VI. Part 3. 

THE BAPTISMS OF LYDIA AND HER FAMILY. 



Q. 1. What evidence for the mode or action of 
water baptism do the baptisms of Lydia and her 
household (Actsxvi: 13 — 16) afford? 

A. Nothing in favor of immersion. This is ob- 
vious from the consideration, that this case again is 
neither connected with any thing customary, nor that 
naturally attends immersion. All, such as a stream, 
pond, or pool, and as bathing-clothes, &c, are not 
so much as named, Jess that information of a change 
of garments, or having gone to a water, &c, is 
given. 

Q. 2. With what design, then, did Paul and Silas 
[v. 13] go "out of the city by a river side ?" 

A. Not to get water to baptize. This could not 
have been the case. It was as yet a secret to all that 
this rite should be administered. The place of re- 
sort was [v. 13] "where prayer," [see the Greek,] 
at a proseuche^ or house of worship, "was wont to 
be made." Hence the design was to worship God, 
and to test the success of their ministerial duties. 
As, however, the building had been previously erect- 
ed, they could not have had a choice as to the place, 
water, and other baptismal accommodations. 

Q. 3. Where, then, were these baptisms admin- 
istered ? 

A. On the spot — in the proseuche, or house of 
worship. There they all had assembled; [v. 13;] 
;there Paul and Silas preached, and the word was 
heard; there God opened Lydia's heart, and there 
she and her family were baptized. Then the next 
thing that occurred was [v. 15] that she constrained 
ber instructors to come into her house. Here then, 



'Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 273 

and not till then, the assembly was dispersed. Now 
then, as no cisterns were kept at such places, noth- 
ing of a bathing order, and as on this and every other 
occasion, all have been so reserved about water and 
baptismal accommodations, we are again brought to 
'conclude that the Christian church then were no 
baptists, in the same sense of the word as applied to 
a certain church in our day; and that these baptisms 
were administered by an application. This then 
again was- house-baptisms; and not only so, but such 
as were administered in presence of a congregation. 
Here then again we have a complete confutation of 
immersion, and hence that which amounts to a per- 
fect confirmation of an application, as the mode or 
action of administration. For if they were not im- 
mersed, the water was applied. 

Q. 4. What must here be proved in order to 
establish immersion ? 

A. 1. That Lydia and her household were taken 
to the river, or some appropriate place for immer- 
sion, and that they were all dipped or plunged all 
over into the water. 

2. That bathing-clothes were at hancl where 'they 
worshipped, or that it was decent for a woman and 
her household to return from the place with Paul and 
Silas, to her house, all over drenched in water, &c. 

3. That it was natural for apostolic practice to 
differ so widely from modern custom, as not even to 
require an intimation of any thing connected with 
immersion. 



(1/2) 



274 SECTION VII. Part \ 



BAPTISM OF THE PHILIPPIAN JAILOR AND HIS FAMILY. 



Q. 1. What does the case of the Philippian Jailor 
and his household (Actsxvi: 16 — 40) afford on the 
mode or action of Christian baptism ? 

A. This: The Jailor's house and the prison must* 
have been but one building. Kad this not been the 
case, [v. 27,] the Jailor could not, on the spot, im- 
mediately have seen, [v. 2(x,] at the time of the earth - 
quake, all the prison, doors open. Therefore, [v. 28} 
Paul could, although [v. 24] in the inner prison or 
one of its apartments, also see the Jailor at the time 
he was about to take his sword to kill himself. This 
accounts, also, for the fact that Paul [v. 28] could 
inform him that the prisoners were yet all present, 
and that he should do himself no harm. That the 
Jailor [v. 29] should have called for a candle, wa a 
not that he had not previously seen, but that he might 
see the better. So then [v. 29] he "sprang in," [i.e. 
v. 24] into the inner prison, where Paul and Silas 
had been confined [v. 33] "and brought them oct." 
Surely not, however, out of the prison-building; 
[v. 26;] the doors being all open and the prisoners all 
loose! who had been [v. 27] a few moments before 
about to have killed himself, on the mere supposition 
that they had all fled! They then had been brought 
out from the place where they were made fast 
in the stocks, into the centre room, or middle apart- 
ment of the prison-building, where his family, upon 
the alarm, had by this time arrived, and the prisoners 
collected, where he could see and be among them 
all. It must have been here, too, where the Jailor 
£v. 30 — 34] must have made the inquiry, "What 
must I do to be saved 1" Where the answer wa» 



Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 275 

given, the sermon preached, and the ordinance of 
baptism administered. Then he [v. 34] took them 
from this place into his own house or apartment of 
the building, where "he set meat before them," and 
they ate and were refreshed. Let any man make- 
more or less of these circumstances. Thus then we 
have another, even a fourth case of house-baptisms. 
Here, too, then, was baptism again administered r 
without either party having known that the rite 
would be required; consequently, no preparations of 
any kind could have been made: so that if they had 
been immersionists, the more it would have induce 
ed them to have spoken abontwater, &c. : but 
not a word — nothing about baptismal accommoda- 
tions — not even an intimation of thekind connect- 
ed with the rite of all the cases on record! — 
Therefore we conclude, that not only those baptisms^ 
but all others, must have also been administered by 
an application of water to the subject. 

Q. 2. But were not the prisons in that age of the 
world, constructed on quite a different plan from 
what you would make this prison, from the connec- 
tion of circumstances,, as you have given them ?. 

A. We have never, in any age. of the world, even 
among the same people, always found that there was 
a uniform and unexceptionable plan laid down by 
which buildings were always constructed, and that 
that plan never changed during that age: therefore 
we not feel disposed to examine or to refer to cus- 
toms or to plans of things, though we really knew 
they were, on general principles, thus and thus giv- 
en, in order to develope a scriptural fact, when we 
have circumstances laid down by inspiration, which 
will present to us the complete construction of th<* 



276 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Parrt. 

building, with a large central apartment, from which 
were doors entering into other smaller apartments, 
termed the inner prison: a certain part of which was 
occupied by the Jailor, called <c his house-" 
the larger was called the outer prison, although the 
centre room. 

Q. 3. But might not the v ailor "V itli as much pro- 
priety have left the prison to have been immersed, 
as to have taken time to have fallen down before Paul 
and Silas, without having feared the escape of the 
.prisoners, although all loose, and the doors all open ? 

A. This was only an act of courtesy, of momen- 
tary duration. The other would have occupied time, 
end would have been off from the prison. Moreover 
we cannot suppose that the noble-minded Paul 
would, at night, in a clandestine manner have left 
the prison, for fear it might have been supposed he 
wished to make his escape, [v. 37,] when he would 
not even leave in the morning, unless honorably 
brought forth; less that the Jailor would have had 
himself [v. 33] and "all his-' dragged out to a stream 
or pond, in order to have been plunged all over into 
water, and thus [v. 23] violate the functions of his 
office, the special charge — "keep tlicm saftly ." Be- 
sides all this, he might have dreaded a design in Paul 
and Silas of taking his and the lives of his family, 
had they intimated an immersion: whilst he might 
naturally have also supposed a willingness of the 
prisoners to assist; so that a dip or plunge all over 
into the water, was out of the question. 

Q. 4. What must here be establisned to prove 
immersion ? 

A. 1. That these were not house-baptisms. 

2. That they had made previous preparation- 



Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 



m 



"evidently had all things at hand to suit immersion. 

3. That they either went out to a stream, or som« 
kind of water, of sufficient depth, or had a cistern m 
the prison, of proper dimensions, with water, in 
which to immerse. 

4. That they all were dipped all over in water. 

f». The reason that the relation of baptism in prim- 
itive times, differed so widely from some modern 
relations, as not to speak of streams, ponds or pools, 
their depth, &c, in which they are supposed to have 
been immersed. 

6. That the mode or action, connected with the 
circumstances of the Jailor's case, if his baptism, and 
those of his family were administered by immersion, 
could create no suspicion in the Jailor's mind that 
Paul and Silas had no ill design. 

7. That the prison-building, upon the scriptural 
relation of facts, as contained in the context, differ- 
ed from the description we have given, so as to pre- 
sent the following draft as incorrect: 



I 




N 


N 


E 


R 

1 


00 


1 




1 

1 


P5 g 


I 




# 




mTTPn PTCTsmvr 




•-5 ^ 


i 

I 




1 * 1 






1 


. 







S 


I 


K 



278 SECTION VIII. Part. 3 



HIE BAPTISMS OF THE CORINTHIANS. 



Q. 1. What light do the Corinthian baptisms 
(Acts xviii: 8) afford for the true mode or action o* 
water baptism ? 

A. That which totally eclipses immersion. The* 
dazzling rays of the facts contained in the account" 
arc so brilliant, as to give neither stream, pond, pool 
nor cistern, and hence no water of proper depth in- 
which to dip, plunge or immerse, for the plain rea- 
son that the rite can be scripturally administered 
without either, and that the apostolic mode or action 
must have greatly differed from the practice of some 
modern divines, 

Q, 2. What most here be permanently establish, 
cd in order to prove immersion ? 

A. That it was not necessary to name the articles 
of accommodation for immersion, because they were 
ail at hand; and that under such circumstances it 
would be well for modern practice to imitate apos- 
tolic usa^re. 



SECTION IX. 



THE BAPTISMS OF THE EPHESIANS. 



Q. 1. What evidence do the baptisms of the 
twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts xix: 1 — S) present 
c-n the-mode or action of water baptism ? 

A. Precisely that which goes to corroborate what 
has already uniformly been given on the former 
eases. As nothing is said about proper accommoda- 
tions at hand for immersion, nor of leaving the place 



Chap. 6. CHRISTIAN BABT1SM. C7f> 

in search of such accommodations, the only natural 
inference that can be made is, that they were bap- 
tized on the spot, where St. Paul communicated his 
instructions: and that consequently the mode or ac- 
tion of the rite had necessarily to be performed by 
an application of water to the subjects. 

Q. 2. What must here then again be fully set 
forth in order to prove immersion ? 

A. 1. That St. Paul either acted unscripturally, 
in baptizing on the spot, where he found the candi- 
dates, or too reservedly, in not informing us in what 
he dipped, plunged, or overwhelmed them. 

2. That the apostolic commission, by the circum- 
stances attending apostolic practice, requires a total 
submersion. 



■» «»♦ Q>. ■ » ■ 



CHAPTER VII. 



THE DEFECTS, AND UN SCRIPTURAL RESULT9 OF THE 
PRACTICE OF IMMERSION. 



Q. 1. How may immersion be scriptural I y de- 
fined ? 

A. Thus: — the antediluvians and Egyptians were 
sinners; hence separated in heart from God: there- 
fore the Lord separated them from his people: the 
former by the instrumentality of an ark, and the lat- 
ter by a cloud, and then immersed and destroyed 
them. It is then certain that the scriptural definition 
of immersion is a sign and token tf separation from 
God and his people — an exhibition of destruction!* 

* "I was not satisfied — had no peace, until I was immers- 
ed; and that as then contentment, happiness, were the imme- 
diate results, therefore immersion must be right/' 

That, however, makes that mode or action, ag MR act tf adr 



'280 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 5. 

Q. 2. What then do you make of the system of 
immersion ? 

A. This:— -that it is a cunningly devised sectarian 
invention, designed to proselyte and unchurch the 
entire Christian church on earth; and thus, upon the 
principle of close communion, necessarily debar all 
others from heaven — eternal life! 

Q. 3. Why, then, when such attach themselves to 
other churches, not re-baptize them ? 

A. For the plain reason, that they are cases in 
such a ruined ceremonial state, that they are exclu- 
ded from a scriptural act of administration. Al- 
though the ministerial authority may have been le- 
gal, the words of the institution correct; but as the 
mode or action was unscriptural, and as we have 
mo apostolic example to imitate, nor scripture to 
'direct in the use of the name of the Holy Trinity a 
second time, in rectifying an unscriptural mode or 
action in a previous administration of this rite, we 
are necessitated to leave them externally and cere- 
monially just where they are, in the hands of God — 
we can do nothing with them. This much then, 
for immersion. Such cases, however, as have been 
administered upon assumed authority and blind zeal, 
however otherwise corrective are bound to re-bap- 
tize. The administrators of such were never called, 
and hence never authorized to officiate in sacred 

.ministration, no more scriptural, than that similar results 
should follow the commission of a depredation against a 
neighbor, from a previous desire to indulge in the crime. 
What next, then, for immersion? 

"My father. $0. } were pious, and they were immersed."— 
Jdood! How does the Quaker reason? .lust like the lmmer- 
sionist: '"My father was a good man, and was never baptized 
with water." Now to what does either argument ainouni ? 
Light— Light— GOSPBE LKillT ! ! 



Chap. 7. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 281 

things so that the displeasure of Heaven, thus in- 
curred, will rest upon them. 

Q. 4. What forbids immersion ? 

A. 1. The defects in its practice. To accom- 
plish an immersion, the candidate must be carried 
into the water, dipped and carried out. This, -how- 
ever, is not done. He is led in, then dipped and led 
out; so that only that part of the person which re- 
mained out of the water was really immersed. It is 
then certain, that the whole Baptist church has 
been deluded. None were ever immersed! We 
thus also discover a want of harmony in their funeral 
rites. As both are to be buried, the one naturally, 
the other typically, and as the one must necessarily 
be carried to the grave, the candidate for baptism 
should also; then immersed, and left to rise of his 
own accord. 

2. The conflicting practice of Jmrnersionists.— 
Some immerse backward, and others forward; some 
only dip the candidate once, and others thrice. They 
thus disagree among themselves. This difference 
they then should first reconcile, before they attack 
any other mode or practice; so that we may know 
who of them is right. 

3. Climate, and if so, God* I. Some countries 
are so cold, that, during a greater part of the year, 
to immerse a person, in a few moments he would be 
a perfect statue of ice. 2. Others are entirely desti- 
tute of a sufficiency of water in which to immerse. 
In both instances, God, by his works, forbids immer- 
sion: hence it cannot be taught in scripture. His 
works and Word must and will ever harmonize. 

4. Circumstances. Many in sickness have urged 
£>r^ and insisted on the administration of this rite, 



282 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3. 

but were denied and deprived of the privilege, and 
left to die, without being able to comply with the 
command of the Savior. Now, if God did not deny 
them, at the time, the influence of his Word and 
Spirit, how could they dare to deny them the use of 
this ordinance ? That this, however, has frequently 
taken place, cannot be denied. An incontrovert- 
ible evidence that immersion is unscriptural. 

5» The effects of Immersion. Many by this prac- 
tice, have injured their health or lost their lives. Im- 
mersion then conflicts with, and often is a violation 
of the decalogue: (Ex. xx : 13:) "Thou shalt not kill." 

6. Scripture. 1. Acts xv: 10, it is said, relative 
to circumcision, "Why tempt ye God to put a yoke 
upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our 
fathers nor we were able to bear?" Can any deny, 
but that immersion is a greater and more dangerous 
yoke than circumcision ? 2. 1 Cor. xiv: 26, "Let all 
things be done unto edifying." Immersion distracts 
the mind and destroys the edification; and thus fails 
in being a means of grace. Bring to your recollec- 
tion timerous females, led into the water, dipped 
under, and then led out. What must have been the 
state of mind ?! What the scene on the banks, and 
the feelings of the multitude?!! 3. 1 Cor. xiv: 40, 
cc Let all things be done decently ani in order." It 
is indecent* to immerse even a man, and still much 
more so a woman! It is out of order — even out of 
the course of nature — [as already seen] — particular' 

*i\light not, however, similar objections have been brought 
against Circumcision, and especially against those recorded 
in Josh, v: 2—6 ? Not at all. The latter were not performed 
as Immersion, publicly, and in the presence of a promiscuous 
•multitude, nor never injured health nor took life. As for 
infant circumcision, it was performed at home. 



Chap. 7. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 283 

ly so — emphatically so — and we would add, at 
certain times, STILL MORE SO, to immerse a 
sister!! Where is then that sectarian heart that can, 
will, or dare still uphold the doctrine of immersion ? 



CHAPTER VIII. 



BRIEFLY A FEW OF THE PROMINENT RESULTS OF THE 
FOREGOING EXAMINATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 



Q. 1. What are positively, to express it briefly, 
some of the most prominent results of the whole fore- 
going examination ? 

A. 1. That the Gospel Covenant is nothing more 
nor less than the continuation of the "Covenant of 
Circumcision." 

2. That Circumcision and Christian Baptism are, 
in nature, so much alike, that none can deny that the 
latter, as the sign or token and seal of the righteous* 
ness of faith, does not come in joom or instead of 
the former. 

3. That the apostolic commission (Math, xxviii: 
19, &c.,) does not contain the words, go and baptize 
believers — less believers only, but "nations." 

4. That the awakened, converted, and children of 
believing parents, are proper scriptural subjects for 
Christian baptism. 

5. That if Christ baptized (Math, iii: 11; Acts ii: 
1 — 5) with the Holy Ghost, surely none dare forbid 
to baptize with water. 

6. That an application of the thing to the subject, 
and not the subject to the thing, is the only scriptu- 
ral definition of the word baptize, when used in de- 
fining the mode or action of Christian baptism, 



284 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Part 3~ 

7. That an application of water to the subject, ex- 
pressed by the word sprinkle, or some other equiva- 
lent, is the only unexceptionable mode or action of 
administering this rite. 

8. That it is natural, as all our spiritual help comes 
from on high, is applied to us, that therefore, the 
water, in the name of the Holy Trinity, should be ap- 
plied to and put on the subject, in token of these facts. 

9. That by this mode or action of administration, 
we are also taught that God has the sole power of 
the disposal and application of all spiritual gifts; that 
they are in his own hands, and that we should sin- 
cerely desire them to be bestowed, and humbly 
wait upon him to apply them to our souls, as water 
can be applied to our persons. 

10. That a mode or action of administration that 
excludes children, is absurd, irrational, and unscrip- 
tural. 

11. That immersion, submersion, &c, as the mode 
or action of administering water baptism, is not 
taught in the Holy Scriptures, and therefore must 
be based, when thus administered, upon the delu- 
sion, error and works of men. 

12. That when it has come to all, the immersion- 
ist is not able to bury his subject in the watery grave, 
as our blessed Lord was in the sepulchre. 

13. That no man has ever seen any one really and 
truly immersed or dipped by an immersionist admin- 
istrator, all aver into the water. 

14. That we must be correct in all our religious 
observances, as it is a fearful thing, and has tremen- 
dous consequences, to transgress the laws of God. 
to change an ordinance, or to break the everlasting 
Covenant. Isa. xxiv: 5 — 7. 



FEET-WASHING. 



Q. 1. What do you make of the practice of Feet- 
Washing, noticed in the Scriptures ? 

A. That it was nothing but a. custom, resulting 
from th.e nature of things. 

Q. 2. What were those things like? 

A. These: It is well known that the Holy Scrip- 
tures were penned in the East, and came to us in all 
their primitive, native simplicity; so that they, al- 
though translated, carry with them, more or less, the 
nature and style of the languages then spoken: and 
many of the expressions have reference to climate « 
varying from ours; customs and manners of a peo- 
ple differing greatly from us. To have, then, a cor- 
rect view of Feet-Washing, we must, 1, be made 
acquainted with the facts, that the climate, jn that 
country, is warm; that it rarely rains during summer, 
which lasts six months; and hence the roads become 
very dry and dusty; that there is no Spring nor Fall, 
and that the remainder of the year it mostly rains, 
which is their, winter. 2. That the shoes worn are 
sandals, or soles without uppers, tied to the feet, 
end these are worn without stockings. Thus, then, 
we can readily imagine the state and condition of 
the feet under such usages. 

Q. 3. But how will you prove it to have been 
only a custom ? 

A. From the fact that it was practised, without 
any previous legislation from Heaven, and without 
having had any reference to religion. It is only no- 
ticed in scripture where hospitality and kindness 



PEET-WASHING. 287 

were necessary. It is held up as a common and 
continued custom. We find it already noticed in 
the days of Abraham, (Gen. xviii: 4; xxiv: 32,) Lot 
(Gen. xix: 2) and Joseph. (Gen.xliii: 24.) We read 
of the practice in Judges, (xix: 21,) in the times of 
David. (1 Sam. xxv: 41.) Solomon also takes no- 
tice of it. (Sol. Song v: 3.) That this is a correct 
view, and that it never was enacted by the Almigh- 
ty, as a special and common religious duty, is clear 
from the language of Christ himself. That he, in 
Luke vii: 3-7 — 45, among other things, had reference 
to this custom, cannot be denied. The Evangelist 
there informs us, that a woman entered the house of 
a Pharisee, where Christ had been invited to dine: 
that she "stood at his feet behind him weeping, and 
began to wash his feet with her tears, and did wipe 
them with the hairs of her head." We are further 
told, "When the Pharisee who had bidden him saw 
it, he spoke within himself, saying, This man, if he 
were a prophet, would have known who and what 
manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she 
is a sinner. — Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, 
I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he said 
Master, say on." After some remarks had been 
made by the Savior, it is said, "And he turned to the 
woman, and said unto Simon, "Seest thou this wo- 
man ? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me 
no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet 
with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her 
head." 

Q. 4. What do we learn from 1 Sam. xxv: 41, in 
connection with what we have already seen, where 
we are informed that Abigail offered herself as "a 
servant to wash the feet of David's servants?" 



£8$ FEET-WASHING. 

A. That it was not only a common custom of pf/-> 
liteness manifested when strangers were entertained, 
and a universal practice of decency and cleanliness, 
but also that there were servants purposely, whoso 
business it was to attend to this matter, and who 
were looked upon as engaged in the lowest and 
meanest employment. Had not this been the case, 
she would not have offered herself as a servant, to be 
a servant to servants, in order to express herself as 
willing to be looked upon as in a low and menial 
state. 

Q. 5. But was there not special legislative en- 
actment on this subject in Ex. xxx: 19? 

A» There was for the Levitical order, the priests, 
but for none else. On the supposition, however, 
that there could such legislative enactment be pro- 
duced in the Old Testament Scriptures, universal in 
its nature, embracing the whole nation, even all the 
Jews; that still would not, it could not make it 
binding on any one under tire New dispensation, as- 
all externals served only (Heb. ix: 10) " until the time 
of reformation." (Heb. vii: 12,) "The Levitical 
priesthood being changed, there is made of necessi- 
ty a change also in the law." Moreover, we are also 
told, (Col.ii: 14; Eph. ii: 15—17,) that "Christ blot- 
ted out the hand-writing of ordinances — and nailed 
it to his cross." 

Q. 6. How then do you reconcile that on Feet- 
Washing, contained in John xiii: 1 — 18 ? 

A. Thus? According to St. Luke's (xxii: 24 
— 30) account, at the last supper of our blessed 
Lord, the disciples were still indulging in ambitious- 
views; and still needed spiritual instruction concern- 
ing mutual condescension and love. The Savior, 



FEET-WASHING. 289 

therefore., under the then external, existing cir- 
cumstances, in order to rectify their mental delusion 
and set their heads and hearts right, so that it might 
leave a lasting impression on their minds, goes to 
work and washes his disciples' feet. He then said 
unto them, (John xiii: 13,) "Ye call me Master and 
Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. [V. 14,] If I 
then your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, 
ye also ought to wash one another's feet." Was not 
this a stroke at ambition ? Was it not calculated to 
rectify their views and humble their hearts ? Did 
the act of washing their feet not preach volumes F— • 
"Your Lord and Master has condescended to be a 
servant unto servants! He has stooped to the low- 
est, meanest employment for souls, [yours] religion, 
the honor and glory of God. Well could the Savior 
say, [v. 15,] "I have given you an example that ye 
should do as I have done to you." How touching! 
what a lesson! [V. 16-,] "Verily, verily, I say unto 
you, the servant is not greater than his Lord, neither 
he that is sent greater than he that sent him."— 
[V. 17,] Now "If ye know these things, happy are 
ye if ye do them." 

Q. 7. But what were the peculiar, existing cir- 
cumstances at the feast, that offered themselves as 
ftn opportunity to the Savior to rectify still more fally 
Che ambitious notions of his disciples ? 

A. They were these: They had just been out 
washing themselves, as preparatory to the celebra- 
tion of the Passover. This is certain, from the Sa- 
vior's own language, when he says to Peter, [v. 10,] 
"He that is washed needeih not save to wash his feet, 
but is clean every whit." But by returning back to 
the house, as thev wore sandals, or at that time might 



290 FEET-WASHING. 

have been even without shoes, soiled their feel. — 
This is certain, or the Lord would not have washed 
them. The wisdom of a man, less of a character 
like Christ, would not suffer him to do a thing that 
was not necessary to be done. In order, then, to 
render the purification complete for the reception of 
the Passover, and them decent and comfortable, the 
feet necessarily had to be washed. The ambition of 
the Apostles, as recorded in Luke xxii 24 — 30, evi- 
dently appears to have been too great for either to 
have volunteered in this service. It was to them too 
low and menial a duty; with such thoughts in their 
heart, to comply with this matter: so the Lord him- 
self undertakes the service. With these facts be- 
fore us, we cannot be astonished at the language of 
Peter, when he says to his Master, [v. IS.] "Thou 
shait never wash my feet." Poor Peter's ambition 
must have received a desperate shock. It must have 
also been still more wrought upon, when Jesus [v. 
8,] answered him, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no 
part with me:" that is, "If I wash thee not," thou 
shiT.lt not be cured of this ambition; I must thoroughly 
root it up. This act will doit. It can only be done 
now, under the present circumstances and state of 
thy heart. Hence, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no 
part with me." Thou wilt not be for me and my 
cause in future. "Simon, Simon, (Luke xxii: 31 — 33) 
behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may 
sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee that thy 
faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strength- 
en thy brethren." Well might poor, ambitious Pe- 
ter say unto Christ, if this act will have such an effect 
upon my heart, [v. 9,] "Lord wash not my feet only, 
but also my hands and my head." But the Savior 



FEET-WASHING. 291 

well knew, that to stoop so low as to wash only his 
feet, would have a better effect than to have washed 
him all over. For thus he might have been led to 
have trusted to the washing, the external perform- 
ance, as too many poor Peters too frequently do* 
What a lesson to the twelve to rectify their errone- 
ous notions, to humble their hearts, and to qualify 
them for future usefulness in the absence of the bless? 
ed Redeemer. 

Q. 8. But do not the "vs. 2 and 4 of John xiii: 
show that their feet were washed after the meal; 
how then could the washing of the disciples' feet 
have been the completion of the purification to the 
celebration of the Passover ? 

A. Thus: We have in this chapter an account 
of a. feast, [vs. 2 and 4] of a supper, not of two, but 
of a single supper or meal, the Passover. That there 
is a discrepancy in the translation must be admitted. 
Scripture, however, must and does always harmon- 
ize. Some things in this relation, according to the 
translation, do not. It cannot be correct, that we 
should be informed that the supper should have end- 
ed, [v. 2,] and then that [v. 12] Christ should have 
set down again to supper. That it was at the same 
table is certain. [Vs. 23 — 29.] By an examination, 
however, of the original, we find, 1, that [v. 2] the 
expression, "And supper being- ended," [Kai deip- 
nou genome no w,] should have been rendered, And 
supper being done, or just ready. 2. That Christ 
should Iveve arisen, [v. 4] i6 Jrom supper," only goes 
to show that he had been at the table, not, however, 
that he had eaten. Nor is it reasonable that he par- 
took of the supper, and then washed their feet, and 
finished his meal after he [v. 12] sat down: and thus . 



292 FEET-WASHING. 

that the disciples with himself, should have eaten a 
part previously to, and and another part after the 
washing of the feet. Neither do we read [v. 4] that 
any had as yet been at the supper but himself. — 
Moreover, no where, in all the scriptures, are we 
informed that they ate their meals first, and then 
washed their feet; but always the contrary: first they 
washed, and then they ate. It is then certain that 
the Lord washed their feet before supper. 

Q. 9. But do you not admit, as is expressly said, 
[v. 4] Christ arose "from supper," that he had been 
at tire supper or table, before he washed their feet? 

A. Certainly: It was to the point, in being first 
at the table, before he washed their feet, in order to 
carry out his design. "Supper being done, or just 
ready, he wisely sat down, so that he might, as al- 
ready seen, fully test their ambition, their hearts. 
As he thus, then, had gone to the furthest extent, 
and none of the twelve yet having volunteered and 
offered his service in the completion of the purifica- 
tion, that was yet left to be done: "He" then, as 
we are told, [v. 4] "riseth from supper, and laid 
aside his garments," &c, "and [v. 5] begau to wash 
the disciples' feet." 

Q. 10. But how will you prove that John iii: 1, 
&c, really refers to the Passover ? 

A. From the tenor of Math, xxvi: Mark xiv: 
Luke xxii: and this chapter: — and particularly, as 
Judas is, in all these relations, said to have been 
present at the table with the Apostles, and in all 
these instances is held up as then about betraying 
Christ. Math, xxvi: 21—26; Mark xiv: 17—22: Luke 
xxii: 14, 21—24; John xiii: 21—30. Moreover, 
das betrayed the Savior but once. 



FEET-WASHING. 293 

Q. 11. But what testimony can you offer, that the 
act of fee (-washing* had really bearing upon the am- 
bition of the Apostles, as related in Luke xxii: 2-4 — 
30, as that relation there follows the relation of the 
celebration of the Passover, and even the institu- 
tion of the Lord's Supper? 

A. This: It is said in v. 24, "And there was also 
a strife among them, who of them should be account- 
ed the greatest." This expression, "and there was 
also, &c, certainly conveys the idea that this* strife* 
had taken place previously to the celebration of the 
Passover: and consequently then to the institution of 
the Lord's Supper. But to set this question forever 
at rest, this strife for superiority , and "who should 
be accounted the greatest," and that our view is cor- 
rect on feet-washing, as all having preceded the 
supper, or the Passover; and hence the institution of 
the Lord's Supper — the expression in Math, xxvi: 
22, and Mark xiv: 19, where it is said of the Apos- 
tles on hearing and having been made acquainted 
that one of them would betray him, as the result of 
this information, "They were exceedingly sorrow- 
ful," fully decides. Because, when sorrow lays hold 
of the human mind, all such ambition subsides. — 
Moreover, this information was communicated at the 
table, while feasting on the Paschal lamb: nor was 
that the place to "be at variance, or to discuss the 
subject, "who should be accounted the greatest." 
Would Christ have permitted this ? Common sense 
tells us the contrary. Hence the design of the ser- 
vice of Christ in feet-washing, is fully developed and 
the end of its use determined. 

Q. 12. What further testimony have we, that 



291 FEET-WASHING. 

feet-washing is neither a New Testament ordinance 
nor a part connected with the Lord's Supper ? 

A. This: 1. It is nowhere in the scriptures no- 
ticed as an ordinance, or a rite practised by the 
Apostles, like Baptism and the Lord's Supper, or 
in connection with the latter. 2. St. Paul, in 1 Cor. 
xi: 16 &c, speaks of a variety of things, viz. [v. 16] 
of contentions, [v. 18] divisions, [v. 19] heresies, and 
[vs. 21 — 23] the entire abuse of the Lord's Supper, 
without saying a word about feet-washing as con- 
nected with it: — of some [v. 21] that had an abun- 
dance, and of others [v. 22] that had not,- or in other 
words, of some that were rich and others poor; yet 
the rich and ambitious did not, it appears, require or 
demand of the poor to wash their feet. Had feet- 
washing been customary on such occasions, was 
there not an opportunity given to have heard some- 
thing on that subject, as well as on others ? But not 
a word. St. Paul says also, [v. 23, &c.,] "I have 
received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto 
you;" and goes on and states the institution of the 
Lord's Supper, but gives no information on feet- 
washing. L£ it had, however, been any part of the 
institution, he certainly would have named it. As 
he therefore declares to have "delivered unto" them 
that which he had "received of the Lord," and did 
not deliver unto them the practice of feet-washing, 
as connected with the Lord's Supper, feet-washiug 
is not of the Lord, but when viewed as a religious 
institution, is a simple, superstitious practice, re- 
ceived of men: and hence a human invention, and a 
practice imposed upon those who cannot either judge 
or who are too much prejudiced to examine the 
scriptures and decide for themselves. 



FEET-WASHING. 295 

Q. 13. But what then do you make of 1 Tim. v: 
10 ? 

A. Nothing more nor less than this: to wash one 
another's feet, or "the saints feet," as a custom in 
the East, was classed with good works. The Apos- 
tle Paul is the judge in this matter. His language, 
in the passage under consideration, will speak for it- 
self. The widow to whom reference was had, he 
says was to be "well reported of for good works." 
Then the Apostle goes on and enumerates them: 
"If she have brought up children, if she have lodged 
strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she 
have relieved the afflicted." Then he sums up all 
others besides those specified, in this language: "If 
she have diligently followed every \_other] good 
work." 

Q. 14. What do we learn from the above dis- 
cussion ? 

A. 1. That the practice of feet-washing never was 
an ordinance, or a religious rite in the church; and 
therefore it cannot, as such, be binding on us. 

2. That an act, under any honest circumstances, 
when it can be scripturally bestowed on a person for 
his comfort, the cause, the honor and glory of God, 
is yet binding on us. 

Q. 15. But what, without note or comment, does 
1 Tim. v: 10, require of those who still insist on tins 
practice as a religious ordinauce ? 

A. That they are bound, not only to observe the 
practice of feet-washing, as a religious rite, but also 
all and every other good work specified, and to 
which reference is had in that passage. 



THE HOLY KISS. 



Q. 1. How has the Holy Kiss, noticed in scrip- 
ture, had its origin ? 

A. From the nature of the primitive society of 
the world. It was first peopled by families; and thus 
the -kiss was naturally introduced by the simplicity 
and affection of parents for their children, as is more 
or less the custom in families yet. Hence then its 
origin. 

Q. 2. How was, however, this custom continued 1 

A. Thus: These families constituted finally larg- 
er family connections or clans, living separately from 
each other: so that it soon became a customary to- 
ken of love and friendship, among such a particular 
society of relations, thus formed. 

Q. 3. But how did this practice get into the his- 
tory of the Jews ? 

A. Keadily. The Bible being principally a his- 
tory of the people and their religion, even of the pa- 
triarchs and their descendants, separated from all 
others, constituting a separate and peculiar people 
or nation, for the worship of the true God; yet sepa- 
rated and divided among themselves into particular 
and distinct tribes — each living separately, on some 
particular portion of the land of their father! : so that 
they naturally were, and continued all brethren and 
relations; consequently this custom was naturally 
continued, and the kiss became as natural, as com- 
mon, and answered the same end with them as tbe 
ahaking of hands with us. Hence we read, Gen. 

(Ai 



298 THE HOLY KISS. 

xxvii: 2S, that Jacob kissed his father Isaac; Gen, 
rlviii: 10, Jacob the sons of Joseph, as his adopted 
children; and Gen. xxxi: 28, that Laban complained 
of not being permitted to kiss Jacob's family, whom 
Laban called his sons and daughters. 

Q. 4. Was it, however, as general a custom with 
them, as the shaking of hands with us, when they 
met and separated ? 

A. Equally as much so. It answered as a token 
of love and friendship between relations and friends, 
whereby they greeted each other when they came 
together; Gen. xxix: 11, 13; xxxiii: 4; xlv: 15, and by 
which they bade each other adieu when they left one 
another^ Gen. xxxi: 55; 1 Kings xix: 20. Thus, then, 
we see how this custom was carried even into the 
New Testament, and why it was considered in the 
xlays of the Savior, Luke vii: 45, impolite and unkind 
when neglected; and why the Apostles appear to have 
laid so much stress upon it. The Holy Kiss, then, 
in Rom. xvi: 16, &c, to which reference is frequent- 
ly had by the Apostles, was based entirely upon 
the custom of the times: and "had therefore nothing 
peculiarly religious connected with it, but the in- 
culcation of compliance with good manners, kind- 
ness, love and politeness. 

Q. 5. But what makes this custom peculiarly ap- 
plicable to the views of the Apostles in introducing 
it among Christians ? 

A. This: As all of every nation that embraced 
the Christian religion by conversion, became not on- 
ly the adopted spiritual children of Abraham, but the 
proper spiritual offspring, and adopted children, 
through Christ, of God: and so then all brethren, all 
relations and friends, having one common Ancestor, 



THE HOLY KISS. 339 

and one common Heavenly Father; and thus belong- 
ing to one common family, — there being at that time 
no other token of love and friendship in vogue among 
the Jews, they would naturally introduce that cus- 
tom: and as the Christian religion is a system of love 
and mercy, it was on all hands particularly adapted 
to the times and circumstances then existing. 

Q. 6. But why was it called "A Holy Kiss" or 
"A Kiss of Charity?" 

A. To distinguish it from the kiss of deceit and 
deception sometimes practised. See Joab, 2 Sam. 
xx: 9, and Judas Iscariot's case, Math, xxvi: 48. 

Q. 7. But how did this custom finally become lost? 

A. From an overflowing majority, after the days 
of the Apostles, of heathen, to that of Christian con- 
versions. This introduced into the Jewish church 
other manners of kindness, love and politeness. — 
Thus the shaking of hands was exchanged for the 
Holy Kiss. 

Q. 8. Is, however, this scripturally correct ? 

A. Certainly: As we are no longer settled in 
groups, as were the Jews, but are living among a 
poople of other customs, must pass continually under 
the eye of heathens, and the malicious inspection of 
the wicked, who are ever ready to pervert and cen- 
sure the best motives and actions of the pious; and 
above all, as Christ, through the Apostle, has given 
special legislation that is to the point, and that will 
embrace the entire scope on this subject, by incul- 
cating, as a duty, 1 Thes. v. 20, to "abstain from 
all appearance of evil." It is then scripturally cor- 
rect (Rom. xv: 2; 1 Cor. ix: 19—24; x: 32) to 
conform to the customs of the times, that are not in 
themselves sinful: and therefore, instead of mani- 



300 THE HOLY KISS. 

festing in our day, our love and attachment to one 
another, through the token of a kiss, to manifest 
that frame of mind by the shaking of hands. More- 
over, among near relations, where we can, without 
offence, literally conform with the injunction, all is 
right; and under such a state of things, there is yet, 
among many Christians, a literal conformation. — 
But even then the thing is scripturally optional. 

Q. 9. How then is the injunction, "Salute one 
another with a holy kiss," binding on us ? 

A. Thus: When we greet a brother or friend, 
or bid him adieu, we should, in using the customary 
token of good manners, kindness, love and polite- 
ness, always exercise friendly feelings, love and 
m ercy towards him, and never fail in carrying out 
this frame of mind by our words and actions, as tes- 
timony of the uprightness of our hearts. Then, and 
not till then, are we acting in accordance with the 
injunction of the Apostle. All those, however, that 
feel and act differently from this, will that long 
have Joab for their father, and Judas Iscariot for 
their brother. 

Q. 10. Was there, however, ever a scriptural 
salutation conveyed to another, by or through the 
instrumentality of the hand? 

A. There was. That in 1 Cor. xvi: 21, is to the 
point. "The salutation of me Paul with mine own 
hand." If, then, this salutation, was then given by 
the hand, accompanied with such language, is it not 
then scripturally correct, and to the point, to extend 
the hand, with an upright heart, to a friend or bro- 
ther, accompanied with becoming scriptural oral 
expressions, as the desires and feelings of the soul ? 
This none can or dare deny. 



INDEX. 



I>ART. I.— PREPARATORY MATTER. 



CHAPTER L 

SEC. I.— Introductory page 5 

II. The Holy Scriptures, the rational and only 

conclusive source of reference 8 

III. The People of God, their visibility, eccles- 

iastical economy, and the scriptural appel- 
lations given them 13 

IV. The Unity of the Church of God \ 19 

V. The Old and New Dispensations 23 

VI. The Covenant of Grace 26 

VII. Circumcision, the sign or token and seal of 

the Covenant 36 

VIII. The establishment of the Christian Church, 
and how Baptism comes in room of Circum- 
cision .45 

CHAPTER II. 

A Recapitulation of the Covenant, Circumcision and Cir- 
cumcision connected with Baptism. 

SEC. I. — A concise view of the nature of the covenant 

of Circumcision 52 

II. A concise view of the nature of the sign or 

token, Circumcision 54 

III. The Covenant, Circumcision, etc., further ex- 

amined 56 

IV. A concise view of Circumcision connected 

with Baptism 57 

CHAPTER III. 
Ike Baptism of the Holy Ghost does not supersede 

Water Baptism ^..M 



PART II.— THE SUBJECTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

Their specification 63 

CHAPTER II. 

f SEC. I.— The Awakened 63 

II. The Converted.. t56 

III. Little Children, Infants 69 

IV. Moral fitness in Children, etc. — Testimony 

for Infant Baptism 72 

CHAPTER III. 
Figurative Adult and Infant Baptism. 

SEC. I.— The Tine and the Branches 87 

II. The Olive Tree 90 

CHAPTER IV. 

Typical Adult and the Baptism of Little Children Typical 
of Christian Baptism. 

SEC. L— The Red Sea 

II. Noah and the Ark , 99 

CHAPTER V. 
Family Baptisms. 
SEC. I. — Apostolic Commission — Number of Baptized 

Families— Apostolic Example 103 

II. Lydia and the Jailor 110 

III. The Church must be Washed.— Little Chil- 
dren Disciples 119 

CHAPTER VI. 

A concise view of Christian Baptis?n. 

SEC. I.— The origin of Terms, etc 131 

II. The ceremonial Developement of others, and 

their Application 134 

III. Their Nature and Use still further illustra 

ted Ml 

IV. Their Passive character under the Adminis- 

tration of the Rite, exhibited and defined 145 

V. Promiscuous Matter 147 

VI. Infant Communion— A grand Difficulty re- 
moved 155 



TART III.— -THE MODE. 



CIIArTEIl I. 
Ttie Primary meaning of Words — The definition of 

Baptize, Wash, etc 160 

CHAPTER IL 
John' s Ministry. 
iSEC. I. — John's Mode or Action, Christ's Baptism, 

etc., etc 179 

II. Circumstances attending John's Ministry, ... .206 

III. John in Jordan. — En, Eis, Apo, and Ek or 

Ex, examined 211 

IV. The Length of John's Ministry ., .219 

CHAPTER III. 

The Stronghold of the Immersionist Examined— His sup 

posed. Testimony Confuted. 
SEC. I. Our being Plunged, etc., into Water, bears 
no Analogy to the Death, Burial and Res- 
urrection of Jesus Christ 225 

II. "Baptized for the Dead" 236 

III. The same subject re-examined 238 

IV. ^Immmersionists in search of Water — A Sign 

given— It will not Answer 240 

CHAPTER IV. 

Testimony for the Mode or Action of Christian Baptism 
derived from several Important subjects. 

SEC. I.— The Three Witnesses 242 

II. The Lord's Supper 242 

CHAPTER V. 

The Materials of the Old Testament Scriptures used by the 
Apostles in the dev elopement of the Mode or Action of 
Christian Baptism. 

SEC. I.—The Red Sea 246 

II. Noah's Ark 231 

CHAPTER VI. 

The Apostles 1 own Personal Practice for the Mode or Ac- 
tion of Christian Baptism, as given through the circum- 
stances in the various cases in the New Testament. 

?EC. I.—The Three Thousand 255 



INI/EX. 

II. The Baptisms of the Samaritans 2G3 

III. The Baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch 263 

IV. The Baptism of St. Paul .263 

V. The Baptisms at Cornelius' House .269 

VI. The Baptisms of Lydia and her House 272 

VII. Bap tisms of the Philippian J ailor and his fam- 

ily 274 

VIII. The Baptisms of the Corinthians 273 

IX. The Baptisms of the Ephesians 278 

CHAPTER VII. 
The Defects and unseriptnral Results of the Practice 

of Immersion .. 279 

CHAPTER VIII. 

Briefly a few of the prominent Results of the forego- 
ing examination of Christian Baptism 283 

Teet-Washing 285 

Ths Holy Kiss 296 



ERRATA, 

AUTHOR'S CORRECTIONS, NOTES, ETC, 



[Page and Line from Top given.} 
Page 3, line 15, for is; read are;. 

" 7, " 29, for James read Jude. [That. 

" 11, lines 17 and 18, for works; that read works. 

" 11, line 30, for and rea4 — • 

« 14, « 12, for 3, 5, read 3—6,. 

« 14, " 16, for 26: read 26 &c.;. 

" 14, " 17, for xviii: read xxviii:. 

" 15, " 16, for 'Church,' (ekklesia, read 
Church. Ekklesia. 

" 15, « 19, for (Gen. read Gen. 

"25, " 31, for what read which. 

« 26, " 3, for Pascal read Paschal. 

" 26, " 20, for 14; read 14—16;. 

" 27, lines 13 and 25, for 14; read 14—16;. 

" 28, lino 18, for 25—29; read 25 &c.;. 

"28, " 19, for 53 &c.j read liii:. 

" 29, lines 3, 4, for neither bond, read there is 
neither bond. 

" 29, line 12, omit he still continues. 

« 29, « 13, for 21. read 31.. 

" 29, " 16, for 9, read 19,. 

"30, » 12, for 13, read 13 &c.,. [13&c. 

" 30, » 13, for 13;) read 13 &c; viii: 7—10, 

" 30, lines 16, 17, for signified, read signified, — 
[Circumcision.] 

11 32, line 29, for to read with. 

" 37, " 16, for Sarah, read Sarah, [v. 15.] 

" 37, « 19, for 3 read 31. 

" 42, " 5, for 17; read 13;. 

Cl 42, lines 15, 16, for compliance, read compli- 
ance. [V. 23 &c] 

" 49, line 5, for Acts read Rom. 

" 50, " 12, for xii: read xi:. 

"50, « 28, for 25, read 25 &c.,. 



Page 57, 


tt 


<< 60, 


tt 


" 61, 


a 


« 61, 


c< 


" 6.2, 


tt 


" 68, 


nn< 
tt 


" 69, 


a 



SfeKATA, CORRECTIONS AND NOTfiS. 

15, for also, read likewise.. 
28, for 26, read 25 &c. 

1, for 21; read 41;. [lizethai,. 

31, for eccaggelizethai, read euagge- 
1, for has not proved to be read 
had not proved to h3ve had. 

14, for Those read The baptisms. 
7, for believers read believers, who 
had become thus unchurched, and. 
72, " 22, for perfection, read perfection, 
based upon experience.. [of. 

72, line 26, for deprive read deprive either 

73, lines 18, 19, for although moral fitness be 
less perfect in a child, read and especial- 
ly as a child is destitute of experimen- 
tal moral* perfection,. 

73, line 26, for God, read God; or should re- 
ject an innocent child for want of experi- 
mental moral perfection,. 

75, line 5, for required read requires. 

78, cc 6, for is read are. 

81, " 14, for and read or. 

87, « 27, for [Branches read Branches [. 

90, iC 2, for Twigs read Twigs of those 
Branches. 

93, line 2, for cannot, read cannot while in 
a state of innocency.. 

93, line 8, for is read is first. 

93, « 17, for IS. read 17.. 

94, " 2, for Infant read Christian. 
94, " 22, for 10, read 11,. 

fC 1, for these read those. 

98, {e 9, for taken read token. 

100, " 33, for c away' read away of. 

107, « 14, for 6. read 16.. 

107, " 20, for i: 2; read 1—3;. 

109, (C 19, for as read or. [elude, — how 

110, " 4, for conclude. How, read con* 

110, line 14, for is read are. 

111, " 9, for Syriac — read the Syriac-— 

114, (i 22, omit rejoice. 

115, « 14, for 17, read 27,. 
115, " 24, for 2, read 12,. 



ERRATA, CORRECTIONS ANI* TT0TE3; 

Page 116, lines 20, 21, for Nor is there any difficult 

ty in reconciling, read We here offer, in 

order to make facts as clear as possible, a 

few remarks on,. 
cc 117, line 12, far this was, read these were. 
" 117, (e 27, for oikas read oikos. 
" 125, « 12, fdr legllay read legally. 
" 127, " 4, for 29 read 39. 
" 127, " 8, for is read is [not will be,] . 
„ 127, ee 9, for children, read children, [Gr. 

teknois, then too the sign, token and seal^ 

baptism,]. 
" 136, line 15, for x: read xvi:. 
" 142, (i 8, for is read are. 
" 148, " 11, for right read light. 
" 157, " 27, for 12, read 29 ? . 
" 158, " 20, for even read ever. 
ts 161, (C 28, for submei*sus, read submerscio^ 
" 162, " 27, for He read He again. 
" 163, *< 8, for rantidzoy read hrantidzo,. 
" 164, " 12, for 14: read 4:. 
" 164, " 26", for all, read all, (Acts ii: 17). 
" 166, " 16, for this read the. Again, for the 

burial, read the action of the burial. 
Ci 168, line 29, for baptized, read baptize,. 
" 171, •* 5, for any read an. 
" 172, " 22, for 3 read 13. 
(i 173 r " 13, for expressed, read expressed in 

substance, [see Q. 24, p. 171; also Isa. 

xliv: 3—7; Joel ii:28,J. 
" 174, lines 6, &c, omit brackets. 
» 176, line 16, for —5; read 2—7;. Again, for 

2 Cor. i: 22; read Rev. xxii: 4;. |???o?/. 

" 177, lines 27, 31, for rantismou read hrantis- 
" 177, line 2S, for 5 read 5; vii: 14, [Gr. epht- 

nari], 
" 177, line 31, for raniidzo, read hrantidzo,. 
" 178, lines 1 and 2, for sin. Then, read sin; 

then. [menoi*- 

" 178, line 15, for errantismenoi, read erhrantis- 
" 185, line 28, for How could they, read How 

they could. 
" 190, line 10, for expresses read express* 



ERRATA, CORRECTIONS AND NOTES. 

Page 191, line 7, for xxxvii: read xxxvh, 
» 191, line 13, for 3, read 9,. 
" 195, line 13, for xviii: 13; read xxx: 18 — 20;. 
" 196, line 18, for 15,- read 5—16;. 
i( 197, line 32, for law, a read law of a, 
<< 198, line 14, for 1,3. read 16.. 
<< 198, line 23, for 5— read 4—. 
" 199, line 24, for This: read Thus.-. 
" 200, line 6, omit officially. 
tt 201 ) { 33^ ) 

<( 205 '( ^ nes > 3' ( f° T drank read drunk. 

<e 202, line 6, for v. read Luke xxii: 

** 203, line 30, for xix: read ix:. [a% 

** 305, line 25, for baptism. As, reap baptism; 

<( 207, line 9, for sulable, read suitable/ 

« 207, line 17, for 2, read 21,. 

« 207, line 18, for 3, 4, read 34,. 

(l 208, line 26, for iii: read iv:. 

" 208, line 31, for these read those. 

" 211, line 15, for Had read Did. 

« 213, line 6, for defFne read define. 

" 213, line 32, omit John xix: 41;. 

" 216, line 31, for the read i. e. the. 

" 218, line 5, omit I. 

" 222, line 22, il: read iii:. 

« 226, line 4, for 46 read 4—6. 

" 226, line 1 7, for 6 read 9. 

" 226, line 12, for 46 read 4—6. 

«.« 228, line 12, for of read of his death, we shall 

be also [in our resurrection from sin] in 

likeness of. 
" 228, line 26, for ] so read [so. 
i( 237, line 11, for v. read 1 Cor. xv:. 
« 239, line 26, for his read the. 
Cl 240, line 9, for mind read the mind. 
iC 241, line 20, for question read generation, 
*f 244, line 11, for What, read We believe the 

latter: for what. 
" 244, line 25, for 24 read 34. 
* c 247, line 6, for morning read evening. 
<c 250, line 17, for searching read scorching. 
<< 251, line 20, for this read the. 
H 253, line 12, for then having read them leaving* 



ERRATA, CORRECTIONS AND NOTES- 

Page 253, line 29, for but with read with but. 
" 254, line 1, for it, read it, [v. 16] . 
i( 254, line 12, for deluge, read deluge: Or. 
Ci 254, line 16, for water, read water: Or.. 
" 255, line 1, for Apostle's read Apostles'. 
« 256, line 10, for 27 read 37. 
< f 256, line 11, for 28 read 38. 
« 256, line 16, for 38 read 41. 
" 262, line 5, for ix: read x:. 
u 262, line 15, forxi: read vi:. 
" 264, line 2, for him. read him;. 
; " 265, line 30, for 3. read 4.. 
'" 269, line 29, for 19 read 1—19. 
c; 270, line 3, for preaching read preaching,. 
6< 270, line 10, for again read again with. 
» 274', lines 18, 19, for [i. e. v. 24;] read i. e. 

[v. 24;] 
" 274, line 20, for 33 read 30. 
Ci 275, line 29, for we read we do. 
ci 280, line 6, for debar read debars. 



Page 15, line 27, from top, Ekklesia" 
" 79, line 11, " » derived?!. 
" 129, line 7, » " them??. 
" 223, line 33, » » 12$. 

*We are aware, this word may be used, as our Edj 
word Assembly, (Acts, xi::: 4-1, Gr. ekklesian,) to designate 
any collected body of persons; vTs. lxxxix: 7; xxn: 16.) 
but does not then, any more than that, destroy its use in 
pointing out the church (Acts, «: 27, Gr. ekklesia) of God. 
(See also Ileh. xu: 23; James u: 2. 

tAgain, might not the benelit be as great, on the side of 
both parent and child, as the case recorded in Ex. Of! 23 — 
27? Did not the ceremonial act of the parent avert the judg- 
ment of God, and save the child- s life ? Was that no benefit? 

jHovr applicable immersion to the "unbelieving hna- 
band, 1 ' when the believing wife, (and vice versa,) insists 
mi the baptism of their child. "I do not believe in Infant 
Baptism," 6c. Does not then this system suit the uncon- 
verted companion '! Is it not one, though, of boastad faith, 
(Mark xxvi: 160 and yet of delay? How then gospel ? (Heb. 
Hi: 7, t vi: 2.) 

§See v. 6, "Firkins" [Gr. mctretras] eaeh containing a* 
most 14 gal. 



6 



?5 



++ 


















Deacidified using the Bookkeeper procei 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologic 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATK 

. V^lk y 111 Thomson Park Drive 

Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 









LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 665 087 9 



